| 1 |
On 2016.11.10 12:12, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> And if you have other ideas for improvements you're welcome to post |
| 6 |
> them. My understanding is that you oppose most of the proposals |
| 7 |
> around making Comrel cases public which seems to be what those who are |
| 8 |
> most who are calling for change want. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> -- |
| 11 |
> Rich |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Rich, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Lets split this into two parts. Comrel processes, the how they do what they |
| 17 |
do and perceptions of comrel. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This is all about perceptions, not processes. Cynics may view it as |
| 20 |
rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic or 'spin doctoring'. Processes |
| 21 |
can come later, if needed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
A more user friendly, more frequently in the public eye, face on comrel |
| 24 |
will help lessen the fallout when visible actions are taken. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Lets build on what we have already agreed is a start. To recap you words. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> 1. Have the Comrel lead approved by Council in the same manner that |
| 29 |
> QA is, and the ability for Council to appoint interim leads when a |
| 30 |
> confirmed lead doesn't exist. |
| 31 |
> 2. Ask Comrel to continue to publish anonymous stats on their |
| 32 |
> activity level in general. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Why just have the comrel lead approved by Council why not all comrel |
| 35 |
appointments? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
That lets everyone know that comrel are still around and the membership |
| 38 |
is changing. Its also shows a little oversight by council, who are the elected |
| 39 |
body that delegated things to comrel in the first place. That builds |
| 40 |
confidence and every little helps. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Comrel vacancies could be advertised on the ML and appointments |
| 43 |
confirmed (by council) the same way. Raising awareness and the |
| 44 |
perception of openness. That's not to say applications could not be |
| 45 |
encouraged. It helps to gauge interest in comrel. (Yes I know, its not |
| 46 |
a nice job). |
| 47 |
There might even be the odd suitable application that the present |
| 48 |
invitation only system would not have found. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
None of this would change the present selection system. It would |
| 51 |
just raise awareness and confidence that it was in progress. |
| 52 |
Its just business as usual with more publicity. Almost like council |
| 53 |
and trustee elections. I don't believe elections to comrel would be |
| 54 |
useful but its as much of that process as can be usefully adopted. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Anonymous stats could serve two purposes. It could show that |
| 57 |
comrel are still active and if all is well, show that the case load |
| 58 |
is not increasing. A trend of increasing or static caseload |
| 59 |
would be grounds for council to look inside comrel to see that |
| 60 |
all is well. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Gentoo has a small number of projects that cannot be allowed |
| 63 |
to become inactive. Comrel is one of these. |
| 64 |
We have already seen what happens when trustees becomes |
| 65 |
inactive and we have had a case of a snap council election |
| 66 |
after a 'failure to meet'. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
None of it is a lot of work, neither is it invasive of the |
| 69 |
confidentiality that we both believe comrel require. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
On what basis would council confirm the lead and/or comrel |
| 72 |
members? |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
There would need to be an audit of the workings of comrel, |
| 75 |
or how would council know they were doing a good job |
| 76 |
to make that confirmation? |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
We then have the required oversight from an elected body. |
| 79 |
That may be seen as a loss of confidentiality but if council |
| 80 |
can be trusted with appeals, its really a non issue. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
-- |
| 83 |
Regards, |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
Roy Bamford |
| 86 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 87 |
elections |
| 88 |
gentoo-ops |
| 89 |
forum-mods |
Archives