IrcCouncilChanges: Delegation, Contact & Disputes

[Jussi Schultink]

Just one other thing, (and my apologies for the email flood),  Id like to
remind people that wording revisions to items you see are not correct are
most welcome. You people are the community and we "patches are welcome" -
although with the caveat that we may change or not accept them.  However,
for me, a document created with input from the community is much more likely
to serve the community in a meaningful way.

So with that said, I look forward to further conversations with you all.
(and thanks pricey for the rewording you sent already) :D

 Jussi

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Jussi Schultink <jussi01 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Joseph Price <pricechild at ubuntu.com>wrote:
>
>> A few more things to think about.
>>
>> If you're going to hold the Council to it, I think that it would be a
>> good idea to link to
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Delegation
>>
>> ---
>>
>> This one might be a little silly, but I don't think whoever wrote it
>> was thinking clearly. Its just one of those things that doesn't quite
>> fit.
>>
>> "IRC Council members should be accessible by and responsive to the IRC
>> community (i.e. through a dedicated mailing list)."
>>
>> I find it amusing that it suggests our most rampant irc'ers would be
>> most accessible and responsive on email. Just to humour me, could we
>> please change the example to something like "(i.e. in a dedicated irc
>> channel)". It seems a lot more appropriate to me.
>>
>> I feel we need both (which we do have in practice, #ubuntu-irc-council for
> those who arent aware), email is good, but an easy and clear way for people
> to contact the ircc on irc is needed.  this isnt to discount the ML, i
> definately should be there as an alternate point of contact, but the irc
> channel is important also.
>
>> ---
>>
>> "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?"
>>
>
> --
>> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20091209/8c9dbd60/attachment.html>