Call for comments on IRCC nominees

[Joseph Price]

Scroll down and start at the end.

2009/12/16 Daniel Holbach <daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com>:
> On 16.12.2009 15:31, Alan Pope wrote:
>> 2009/12/16 Joseph Price <pricechild at gmail.com>:
>> 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.

What did boredandblogging do for the old IRCC? What benefits did he provide?

I'm not sure what he's been telling you guys... but he brought
*NOTHING* to the table.

This did not benefit us one bit.

What is your reasoning for this? What are we trying to fix? Lets not
just say "its a good thing to do so and so", lets say "its a good
thing because...."

>> 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.

But this voting process is broken? Me and nalioth could call a
meeting, get jussi there, then it would only take me and nalioth (who
are freenode staffers and biased) to made a decision the same way.
elky and LjL wouldn't have to be present. The way it is, it only
requires two people to break things.

This HAS happenned. People have complained about it. It should be
fixed. Its a simple line for crying out loud! Why does it have to
wait?

>>> 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.

NO. They WILL NOT have that authority. As a member of the previous
IRCC, I did not have that authority.

Case in point: We, the IRCC told the CC that #xubuntu's ownership had
been stolen from the Council by Cody Somerville. (After he complained
we were going to take it back) Our opinions were ignored. It was
suggested that we didn't run #xubuntu. The CC made their decision and
ignored us. I called then for this clarification & codification on
scope. It didn't happen.

We did not suggest, we told you. You ignored that.