1 |
Solar has proposed that we go back to monthly meetings. Scheduling a |
2 |
live meeting is difficult due to the council members being spread over |
3 |
different time zones. Someone even had to take time off from work to |
4 |
participate to council meetings, and Gentoo should not be allowed to |
5 |
require such a sacrifice from our professional or, worse, personal |
6 |
schedules. Multiplying live meetings only makes things more |
7 |
complicated and hence going back to once a month makes sense. We |
8 |
should not get rid of the live meetings altogether though, because |
9 |
some decisions require the legitimacy and symbolism of a good |
10 |
old-fashioned live meeting to be better perceived and accepted by the |
11 |
target audience. Not having any live meeting could also weaken the |
12 |
relationships between the members. |
13 |
|
14 |
I also propose that we go back to moderating the council channel |
15 |
during meetings, and that we give +v very carefully. In order to still |
16 |
allow everybody to participate though, I suggest council members keep |
17 |
an eye on another channel (#gentoo-dev or else) where anybody can |
18 |
discuss, and that they bring any idea they think is valuable to the |
19 |
council channel where the meeting is occurring. This way everybody can |
20 |
get a voice and we can keep the council channel tidy during meetings. |
21 |
|
22 |
The main drawback of a monthly meeting is certainly the decrease in |
23 |
reactivity and productivity. I was pleased to see an increase in both |
24 |
when meetings went bi-weekly and wouldn't want to lose this. So what I |
25 |
propose in exchange is we don't wait for the live meeting to discuss, |
26 |
take decisions, vote, etc... Apart from unusually important votes or |
27 |
decisions, nothing prevents us from doing all these on the |
28 |
mailing-list. This was already done in the past but we need to |
29 |
formalize the process a bit and make it more common. The easiest is we |
30 |
do the same as we should do in a live meeting, i.e. give time limits |
31 |
for discussions, for wrap-up (or vote), and make sure that all |
32 |
discussions end up in what-who-when (What is to be done exactly? Who |
33 |
will do it? By when does this person/group agree to get it done?). And |
34 |
since when nobody's in charge nothing happens, each topic should be |
35 |
pushed and followed-up by one volunteer council member. Let's take an |
36 |
example. |
37 |
|
38 |
- User/dev X wants the the council to discuss a particular issue and |
39 |
decide on a solution. |
40 |
|
41 |
- Council member Y picks up the proposition and volunteers to push it |
42 |
to discussion. |
43 |
|
44 |
- Y decides it's a fairly simple topic which can be discussed on the |
45 |
mailing-list in one week, after which all council members will be |
46 |
given 2 days to vote if necessary (this answers "What?"). |
47 |
|
48 |
- If the decision requires an implementation then Y looks actively |
49 |
for a volunteer to do it ("who?"), and finds Z. If there's more than |
50 |
one volunteer it's a good idea to have them work together, but in case |
51 |
it's not possible (or the issue or persons are controversial) Y may go |
52 |
back to the council members to discuss who will actually do it. |
53 |
|
54 |
- Y works out a schedule and action list with Z. It's important to |
55 |
make sure that Z is confident that it can be done. |
56 |
|
57 |
That's just an example. What actually matters is that somebody makes |
58 |
sure that things are progressing. Note that if X is a council member |
59 |
then (s)he becomes a natural candidate to push the idea and lead the |
60 |
effort. In other words, it's nice to talk but it's even nicer to act. |
61 |
|
62 |
I strongly believe that if we can't make that process work efficiently |
63 |
enough then we should consider going back to biweekly meetings. |
64 |
|
65 |
We should also get rid of both the slacker rule and proxies. They're |
66 |
good examples of over-engineering. |
67 |
|
68 |
The slacker rule was introduced in different times to avoid a |
69 |
particular type of behavior, and I think this doesn't apply anymore. |
70 |
We're volunteers, we're doing our best to participate to meetings and |
71 |
fulfill our obligations, so there's no point in punishing ourselves |
72 |
with such a rule. In all the places I've worked I've never seen |
73 |
anybody being fired because (s)he couldn't attend a meeting. Hell, |
74 |
I've never seen anybody blatantly skipping meetings or |
75 |
sleeping/texting/etc being fired either. When people know they can't |
76 |
attend a meeting they usually email a note giving their thoughts and |
77 |
votes for each topic on the agenda. If the missing person |
78 |
couldn't/didn't warn then (s)he is simply marked "missing" in the |
79 |
meeting minutes. And you know what? The earth never stopped turning. |
80 |
In case the discussions drift off the agenda (which shouldn't happen |
81 |
in a perfect world) and if the quorum isn't reached to decide/vote on |
82 |
that unexpected item then the discussion is adjourned to a later |
83 |
meeting (that could be the mailing list in our case). If and when it |
84 |
becomes obvious that a council member has lost interest or can't |
85 |
afford the time anymore to be on the council, then it's his/her |
86 |
responsibility to resign, and it's the other members' responsibility |
87 |
to discuss resignation with him/her if it does not happen. |
88 |
|
89 |
As for proxies, I have no problem with them but it seems controversial |
90 |
and I do agree that there may be latent issues with the concept. All |
91 |
fixes to it or alternatives I've seen seem more complicated to deal |
92 |
with than the actual problem itself. See above for my thoughts on what |
93 |
to do in case of a council member missing a meeting. |
94 |
|
95 |
If you agree I propose that we discuss the meeting format on this |
96 |
mailing-list, more specifically: |
97 |
- Live-meeting periodicity (plus date/time of the first meeting) |
98 |
- Channel moderated during meetings? Another channel for people to |
99 |
discuss at the same time? |
100 |
- Off-line meetings / decision process (see example above) |
101 |
- Do we keep the slacker rule and proxies? |
102 |
|
103 |
I also suggest we discuss until Monday July 13th at 0600UTC, and vote |
104 |
no later than Tuesday July 14th at 0600 UTC (and as early as you |
105 |
want). Vote is informal and means just say as clearly and concisely as |
106 |
possible what you prefer of all the discussed alternatives. Feel free |
107 |
to propose another schedule but in that case please do so ASAP. |
108 |
|
109 |
Denis. |