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
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Meeting format by Denis Dupeyron
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> I also propose that we go back to moderating the council channel > during meetings, and that we give +v very carefully. In order to still > allow everybody to participate though, I suggest council members keep > an eye on another channel (#gentoo-dev or else) where anybody can > discuss, and that they bring any idea they think is valuable to the > council channel where the meeting is occurring. This way everybody can > get a voice and we can keep the council channel tidy during meetings.
It needs some strong and active moderation to go with -v - therefore I'm ok with +v.
> The main drawback of a monthly meeting is certainly the decrease in > reactivity and productivity. I was pleased to see an increase in both > when meetings went bi-weekly and wouldn't want to lose this.
If meetings are a tad more organized and prepared we won't loose and productivity.
> So what I > propose in exchange is we don't wait for the live meeting to discuss, > take decisions, vote, etc... Apart from unusually important votes or > decisions, nothing prevents us from doing all these on the > mailing-list. This was already done in the past but we need to > formalize the process a bit and make it more common. The easiest is we > do the same as we should do in a live meeting, i.e. give time limits > for discussions, for wrap-up (or vote), and make sure that all > discussions end up in what-who-when (What is to be done exactly? Who > will do it? By when does this person/group agree to get it done?). And > since when nobody's in charge nothing happens, each topic should be > pushed and followed-up by one volunteer council member. Let's take an > example. > > - User/dev X wants the the council to discuss a particular issue and > decide on a solution. > > - Council member Y picks up the proposition and volunteers to push it > to discussion. > > - Y decides it's a fairly simple topic which can be discussed on the > mailing-list in one week, after which all council members will be > given 2 days to vote if necessary (this answers "What?"). > > - If the decision requires an implementation then Y looks actively > for a volunteer to do it ("who?"), and finds Z. If there's more than > one volunteer it's a good idea to have them work together, but in case > it's not possible (or the issue or persons are controversial) Y may go > back to the council members to discuss who will actually do it. > > - Y works out a schedule and action list with Z. It's important to > make sure that Z is confident that it can be done. > > That's just an example. What actually matters is that somebody makes > sure that things are progressing. Note that if X is a council member > then (s)he becomes a natural candidate to push the idea and lead the > effort. In other words, it's nice to talk but it's even nicer to act. > > I strongly believe that if we can't make that process work efficiently > enough then we should consider going back to biweekly meetings.
In an ideal case I'd like to see all (or most) discussion going on on-list and our meetings are only used to sum up opinions and voting. If we need a formal process for that - guess not. We just need to do it.
> We should also get rid of both the slacker rule and proxies. They're > good examples of over-engineering.
In general I do agree, but that should require a general vote of all developers. - Tobias


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


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