| 1 |
On 2016.11.12 00:22, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
[snip stuff we are largely agreed on] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Why just have the comrel lead approved by Council why not all comrel |
| 8 |
> > appointments? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> That really reeks of micromanagement to me. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
How often does the comrel membership change? |
| 14 |
Would it be a burden on either council or comrel? |
| 15 |
If it was, that indicates a project membership churn issue, which needs to |
| 16 |
be dealt with separately. Its another indicator that all is not well. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> We don't have Council |
| 19 |
> approve individual appointments in any team currently, and the Comrel |
| 20 |
> lead already has the power to add/remove anybody from the team as |
| 21 |
> needed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
... and from Gentoo. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Its about comrel as a body and confidence in the exercise of its authority, |
| 26 |
and confidence in council to exercise control of comrel. |
| 27 |
At present comrel acts alone, no elected body has any visibility, |
| 28 |
never mind any control or authority but that's old ground now. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Comrel is special ... it operates in secrecy. It needs the a little extra |
| 31 |
oversight to provide the community with confidence that all is well. |
| 32 |
That's the price of secrecy. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
[snip] |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> As far as auditing cases in some ways goes, it is probably a good |
| 37 |
> idea. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Without an audit, on what basis would council confirm any comrel |
| 40 |
appointments, there being no public information to make an informed |
| 41 |
decision? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
>It is also more result-oriented and less process-oriented. I'd |
| 44 |
> rather see the Council looking at what Comrel is doing, than focusing |
| 45 |
> as much on who is doing it. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Yes. Reaching the right result is more important than process being |
| 48 |
followed. Its still important it identify and fix process problems. |
| 49 |
Personally, I would hate to see appeals succeed on a technicality. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> -- |
| 53 |
> Rich |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
We appear to have agreed that ... |
| 59 |
a) regular anonymised comrel stats |
| 60 |
b) advertisement of comrel vacancies |
| 61 |
c) council endorsement of comrel appointments |
| 62 |
d) council endorsement/appointment of comrel lead. |
| 63 |
e) council audits of comrel to inform c) and d) |
| 64 |
are worth taking forward. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Which bits of this need a GLEP? |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Did I miss something? |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Regards, |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Roy Bamford |
| 74 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 75 |
elections |
| 76 |
gentoo-ops |
| 77 |
forum-mods |
Archives