1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 2009.07.07 01:52, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
5 |
[snip] |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I also propose that we go back to moderating the council channel |
8 |
> during meetings, and that we give +v very carefully. In order to |
9 |
> still |
10 |
> allow everybody to participate though, I suggest council members keep |
11 |
> an eye on another channel (#gentoo-dev or else) where anybody can |
12 |
> discuss, and that they bring any idea they think is valuable to the |
13 |
> council channel where the meeting is occurring. This way everybody |
14 |
> can |
15 |
> get a voice and we can keep the council channel tidy during meetings. |
16 |
That splits the log and makes collecting a summary much harder as the |
17 |
discussion in the unmoderated channel needs to be logged and included |
18 |
in the summary somehow. After all, it is clearly relevant to the |
19 |
councils decision making process if the council members read it during |
20 |
a meeting. A new channel would make the recording process easier. |
21 |
|
22 |
I've never been a fan of +m for council meetings. By the time a meeting |
23 |
happens, everyone on the council should have made up their minds, their |
24 |
should be little to discuss. Even progress reports on topics can be |
25 |
obtained by email and 'read' to the meeting and hence into the meeting |
26 |
record. |
27 |
|
28 |
Meetings are then little more than the public recording of council |
29 |
decisions. |
30 |
|
31 |
> |
32 |
> The main drawback of a monthly meeting is certainly the decrease in |
33 |
> reactivity and productivity. I was pleased to see an increase in both |
34 |
> when meetings went bi-weekly and wouldn't want to lose this. So what |
35 |
|
36 |
I think the increase in productivity was due to council members being |
37 |
better prepared, rather than the increased meeting frequency. Maybe one |
38 |
was the result of the other ? |
39 |
|
40 |
> I |
41 |
> propose in exchange is we don't wait for the live meeting to discuss, |
42 |
> take decisions, vote, etc... Apart from unusually important votes or |
43 |
> decisions, nothing prevents us from doing all these on the |
44 |
> mailing-list. |
45 |
Which mailing list? |
46 |
There needs to be a public record of the path leading to a decision. |
47 |
|
48 |
[snip good stuff] |
49 |
|
50 |
> |
51 |
> We should also get rid of both the slacker rule and proxies. They're |
52 |
> good examples of over-engineering. |
53 |
> |
54 |
[snip] |
55 |
Yes. Council decisions should require an absolute majority of council |
56 |
members. That is 4 votes for or against with our present 7 member |
57 |
council |
58 |
|
59 |
> |
60 |
> Denis. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> |
63 |
> |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
- -- |
67 |
Regards, |
68 |
|
69 |
Roy Bamford |
70 |
(NeddySeagoon) a member of |
71 |
gentoo-ops |
72 |
forum-mods |
73 |
treecleaners |
74 |
trustees |
75 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
76 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) |
77 |
|
78 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkpTjLsACgkQTE4/y7nJvavuBgCg7B47tda7F0qVGEeait2LybYv |
79 |
LXYAoPxQH75nKf461rHiwvhTRav/4HE7 |
80 |
=FUxp |
81 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |