Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-council] Meeting format
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:52:32
Message-Id: 7c612fc60907061752i417f7201u2194b34ee830604c@mail.gmail.com
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.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format Lukasz Damentko <rane@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o>
[gentoo-council] Re: Meeting format Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>