| 1 |
Peter Weller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 13:41 +0100, Alex Howells wrote: |
| 4 |
> [snip] |
| 5 |
>> I often don't agree with him, but can't help but respect the work he |
| 6 |
>> does. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I would like to see Council move towards a more compressed meeting |
| 9 |
>> format -- people presenting arguments need to work out their stuff |
| 10 |
>> before bringing it up in the meeting, and to allow for quick |
| 11 |
>> turn-around of decisions I'd suggest fortnightly meetings which are |
| 12 |
>> time-limited to 60 minutes each. A prioritized schedule determines |
| 13 |
>> which order we deal with issues in and anything not getting attention |
| 14 |
>> is bumped 2 weeks, with the priority adjusted if necessary to ensure |
| 15 |
>> it gets attention then. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Each issue should be limited to between 5-20 minutes. If people can't |
| 18 |
>> get through the politics and debate in the allotted time then it |
| 19 |
>> should either get bumped 2 weeks and given another 5-20 minutes, or we |
| 20 |
>> should table a special meeting to allow a full 60-90 minutes *just* to |
| 21 |
>> decide that one issue and nothing else. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Sitting around in #gentoo-council for 3-4 hours every month isn't |
| 24 |
>> conducive to progress, it's going to make people get tired/bored and |
| 25 |
>> not pay proper attention and/or not bother to turn up, which just |
| 26 |
>> leads to elections. Endless cycle? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> ++ From me on this one. If I were elected to the Council, I would do my |
| 29 |
> best to get this happening. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
++ from me too. Along the lines to what I wrote in gentoo.project. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives