| 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----- |
Archives