Call for comments on IRCC nominees

Joseph Price pricechild at ubuntu.com
Wed Dec 16 08:00:11 UTC 2009


No no, the charter is approved by you. Regardless of any
collaboration, it is you (cc) who have the final say.

Again, your comments of this being sorted out between the cc and new
ircc upset me. Pleia led me to believe my comments were welcome. If
you want me to be quiet then please say so.

I've tried to give reasoning with the small number of issues i've
raised. It would be great if you would bother to reply and say 'no,
that's not a good enough reason.' by her own admission, pleia is
speaking on her own behalf.

I feel like you are discounting/ignoring everything i have to say
because i'm me, i'm not on the ircc and i'm not on the cc. That isn't
fair.

I think it is imperative that some of the issues (such as definition
of 'ubuntu') are resolved before the ircc can be useful. What do we
want, a shiny wiki page and a few people with titles, or a functioning
governance body. Priorities.

On 12/15/09, Alan Pope <alan at popey.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 2009/12/15 Elizabeth Krumbach <lyz at ubuntu.com>:
>> The lack of a full active IRCC was causing serious problems
>> community-wise (I fear poor jussi and Pici were being terribly
>> over-worked, thanks again for all your hard work guys!). The consensus
>> seemed to be that we should move forward with appointment and complete
>> discussion on any final lingering issues once the new IRCC is in
>> place.
>>
>
> I agree. I don't see changes to the IRCC as coming in the form of a
> dictate from on high, but a collaboration between the CC, IRCC and
> community. We've asked for and received feedback on the nominees, and
> the charter. I believe the CC will work with the IRCC to mould the
> charter into something workable. If there are potential flaws in it,
> then we can look at that, nothing is set in stone.
>
>> Any changes will be fully discussed with the new IRCC. Given that none
>> of the changes appear to be too horribly controversial I don't see
>> this as a major issue.
>>
>
> In addition to them being non-controversial, nobody other than Joseph
> has raised these issues. Whilst that doesn't invalidate his claims,
> equally seeing very few "me too's" from the existing or nominated IRCC
> leaves me confident that it's not dummy-spittingly bad.
>
>> I can't really claim to be speaking for the entire CC, but my dialog
>> with this team has been in line with the consensus of the CC :)
>>
>
> I'm happy with the way Liz has communicated with the IRCC and other
> contributors to this and other threads. I suspect if any members of
> the CC felt inclined to disagree, we'd know.
>
> Cheers,
> Al.
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device




More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list