Call for comments on IRCC nominees

[Daniel Holbach]

On 16.12.2009 15:31, Alan Pope wrote:
> Here are some answers formulated by myself. To be clear and
> unambiguous I speak only for myself not the entire CC.

In this case you speak for me too. :)


> 2009/12/16 Joseph Price <pricechild at gmail.com>:
>> Great, so as a summary of the 6 points I have raised...
>>
>> From: IrcCouncilChanges: Delegation, Contact & Disputes:
>>
>> 1. Link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Delegation if you
>> expect the IRCC to be held by it.
>>        - No CC response.
>>
> 
> Maybe. MOTU is the only team page which links to that currently in its
> header, none of the others do. I class this as "minor" as I'd expect
> the people we choose/elect to be on a council to have some semblence
> of clue about these kinds of things. If someone wants to add a similar
> boilerplate to the top of the IRC Council page I don't think that
> would be unreasonable.

Every council and board are expected to follow these. What's layed out
in the CC Delegation document is not unreasonable, but common-sense and
best-practise.

Plus this has been announced to all team-council-members:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/team-council-members/2009-November/000009.html



> So, your assertion that the IRCC contains only "rampant irc'ers" does
> not match with my opinion, so I disagree with this point you have
> raised. I also think it's unhealthy for _all_ IRCC communication to
> happen in IRC.

Agreed.


> I have no problem with this waiting until the IRCC is chosen. I have
> been on councils where the members are flexible about voting, in that
> they will allow deferred voting by absentee members via (for example)
> an email subsequent to the meeting - or indeed before it if they are
> known to be unable to attend in person. That depends on the people on
> the council though - which - we don't know yet.
> 
> Whilst we could nail down that wording, I don't see it's a major
> issue, and I'm highly confident that a new IRCC will be happy to work
> with us on the feedback we have received.

I don't think we have any clear documentation on the exact voting
procedures and feel we would loose a lot of flexibility in "nailing
down" every single point of it. For example has the MOTU Council
discussed something in a meeting, collected the available votes and
finished the discussion over email several times already, which was
simply necessary due to time constraints and problems with having quorum.

Being bound by exact rules would have brought a lot of approvals of new
developers to a halt.


>> 5. Request for clarification on Scope of the IRC Council.
>>        - pleia responded, adequately displaying that she does not
>> understand how our group registration form with freenode works.
>>        - I assume no other CC members understood this either?
>>        - I've done my best to explain the current GRF, and ask how we
>> should define the scope. No response from CC since this.
>>
> 
> You had multiple responses on that subject, and I still fail to see
> why this needs nailing down before we have the IRCC in place. I'm
> envisioning a new IRCC which feels it can collaborate with the CC on
> issues such as this to reach a set of governance standards which meet
> the requirements of the Ubuntu project, individual project teams and
> Freenode.

Agreed. If there's a need to clarify documentation or make a decision
about it, this can all happen in due course. The IRC Council has every
authority to lead that discussion and decide on it.

Have a great day,
 Daniel