| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> This is all about perceptions, not processes. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Great. Whose perception needs changing? Besides the ~5 people |
| 6 |
replying in this list? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why just have the comrel lead approved by Council why not all comrel |
| 10 |
> appointments? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That really reeks of micromanagement to me. We don't have Council |
| 14 |
approve individual appointments in any team currently, and the Comrel |
| 15 |
lead already has the power to add/remove anybody from the team as |
| 16 |
needed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Comrel vacancies could be advertised on the ML |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That makes sense. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Anonymous stats could serve two purposes. It could show that |
| 23 |
> comrel are still active and if all is well, show that the case load |
| 24 |
> is not increasing. A trend of increasing or static caseload |
| 25 |
> would be grounds for council to look inside comrel to see that |
| 26 |
> all is well. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well, it seems fairly obvious that all is not well already, the |
| 29 |
problem is that there aren't a lot of great solutions for this, as |
| 30 |
Comrel case queues look like bug queues just about anywhere in Gentoo. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Gentoo has a small number of projects that cannot be allowed |
| 33 |
> to become inactive. Comrel is one of these. |
| 34 |
> We have already seen what happens when trustees becomes |
| 35 |
> inactive and we have had a case of a snap council election |
| 36 |
> after a 'failure to meet'. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I'll just note that snap council elections after a failure to meet is |
| 39 |
a purely self-imposed problem. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It seems like Trustees failed to have a quorum for a few meetings in |
| 42 |
the last year and it wasn't a big deal, because for whatever reason we |
| 43 |
don't choose to re-elect them all whenever that happens, probably |
| 44 |
because the election team would quit if we did. :) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
The whole "slacker" and failure to show up system we have with the |
| 47 |
Council really just measures whether Council members manage to connect |
| 48 |
to IRC from their phones at a scheduled time each month. It is a |
| 49 |
pretty poor way to assess activity, and IMO showing up to Council |
| 50 |
meetings is probably about the least important thing Council members |
| 51 |
should be doing. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
But, I've ranted on that topic plenty of times already... |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
As far as auditing cases in some ways goes, it is probably a good |
| 56 |
idea. It is also more result-oriented and less process-oriented. I'd |
| 57 |
rather see the Council looking at what Comrel is doing, than focusing |
| 58 |
as much on who is doing it. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Rich |
Archives