IrcCouncilChanges: Delegation, Contact & Disputes

[Tony Yarusso]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Joseph Price <pricechild at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> "Ops are welcome to apply for a role on the council and retain their
> Op status, but they are also informed that in the interests of having
> a separation of power, they also have the opportunity to step down as
> an Op temporarily."
>
> We aren't forcing anybody to be an op here? People can step down
> whenever they want (as long as they are considerate in doing so of
> course)
>
> People also don't have to use their access if they don't want to.
> Nobody has to get involved in a situation if they don't want to.
>
> This line is extremely confusing to me. What does it mean? Why is it here?
>
> In short.. my big question to whoever wrote it is... "What issue is it
> designed to resolve?"

I didn't write this and don't remember this in-context, but I would
guess that there are two parts to it:
1)  We don't really have a precedent for "suspension" of membership.
In the past we've only had people either resign or just become less
active.
2)  Simply choosing not to act on things generally doesn't give the
same *external* appearance wrt conflict of interest as being unable
to.

I suspect what whomever wrote that meant is that there should be a way
of visibly giving up rights, ie actually losing access and membership
in ubuntu-irc, such that the whole world can see that they are only
focusing on their IRCC duties and have separated themself from normal
operation, while still having a guarantee of that access being
restored at the end of their two-year term.  Conflict of interest
concerns are about appearances - a perceived conflict of interest is
as much a concern as an actual one, so some people may wish to do
everything they can to minimize the appearance of one, without
completely abandoning a community they care about through a permanent
resignation.

 - Tony Yarusso