Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o>
To: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:41:18
Message-Id: 1247078473.6234.35.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Meeting format by Denis Dupeyron
1 Denis Dupeyron wrote:
2 > I also propose that we go back to moderating the council channel
3 > during meetings, and that we give +v very carefully. In order to still
4 > allow everybody to participate though, I suggest council members keep
5 > an eye on another channel (#gentoo-dev or else) where anybody can
6 > discuss, and that they bring any idea they think is valuable to the
7 > council channel where the meeting is occurring. This way everybody can
8 > get a voice and we can keep the council channel tidy during meetings.
9
10 It needs some strong and active moderation to go with -v - therefore I'm
11 ok with +v.
12
13 > The main drawback of a monthly meeting is certainly the decrease in
14 > reactivity and productivity. I was pleased to see an increase in both
15 > when meetings went bi-weekly and wouldn't want to lose this.
16
17 If meetings are a tad more organized and prepared we won't loose and
18 productivity.
19
20 > So what I
21 > propose in exchange is we don't wait for the live meeting to discuss,
22 > take decisions, vote, etc... Apart from unusually important votes or
23 > decisions, nothing prevents us from doing all these on the
24 > mailing-list. This was already done in the past but we need to
25 > formalize the process a bit and make it more common. The easiest is we
26 > do the same as we should do in a live meeting, i.e. give time limits
27 > for discussions, for wrap-up (or vote), and make sure that all
28 > discussions end up in what-who-when (What is to be done exactly? Who
29 > will do it? By when does this person/group agree to get it done?). And
30 > since when nobody's in charge nothing happens, each topic should be
31 > pushed and followed-up by one volunteer council member. Let's take an
32 > example.
33 >
34 > - User/dev X wants the the council to discuss a particular issue and
35 > decide on a solution.
36 >
37 > - Council member Y picks up the proposition and volunteers to push it
38 > to discussion.
39 >
40 > - Y decides it's a fairly simple topic which can be discussed on the
41 > mailing-list in one week, after which all council members will be
42 > given 2 days to vote if necessary (this answers "What?").
43 >
44 > - If the decision requires an implementation then Y looks actively
45 > for a volunteer to do it ("who?"), and finds Z. If there's more than
46 > one volunteer it's a good idea to have them work together, but in case
47 > it's not possible (or the issue or persons are controversial) Y may go
48 > back to the council members to discuss who will actually do it.
49 >
50 > - Y works out a schedule and action list with Z. It's important to
51 > make sure that Z is confident that it can be done.
52 >
53 > That's just an example. What actually matters is that somebody makes
54 > sure that things are progressing. Note that if X is a council member
55 > then (s)he becomes a natural candidate to push the idea and lead the
56 > effort. In other words, it's nice to talk but it's even nicer to act.
57 >
58 > I strongly believe that if we can't make that process work efficiently
59 > enough then we should consider going back to biweekly meetings.
60
61 In an ideal case I'd like to see all (or most) discussion going on
62 on-list and our meetings are only used to sum up opinions and voting. If
63 we need a formal process for that - guess not. We just need to do it.
64
65 > We should also get rid of both the slacker rule and proxies. They're
66 > good examples of over-engineering.
67
68 In general I do agree, but that should require a general vote of all
69 developers.
70
71 - Tobias

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Meeting format Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o>