Call for comments on IRCC nominees

[Elizabeth Krumbach]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Joseph Price <pricechild at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 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...."

We were trying to address complaints within the community that the ops
and the IRCC were the same people. Typically this isn't true since the
IRCC does tend to stay out of disputes, but there was this perception
within parts of the community. The idea of separating IRCC from active
ops was floated to try to solve this perception.

As has been noted, this strategy was dismissed as unworkable. The
language in the document reflects a perception that should be conveyed
to the community that the IRCC will be impartial during discussions.
It could be rewritten to make it more clear, but I don't see that as a
pressing need at the moment.

> 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?

The need for a majority to pass motions and make decisions should be
documented on the wiki (Jussi, can you handle this when you have a
chance?). I thought you were referring to ratification of the entire
document, which is too much work for the current 2 man IRCC and CC to
tackle at this time, which is why we're waiting for the full IRCC to
work through it all.

Again, I understand the concern and the issues it has caused in the
past, I just didn't see a vital, pressing need for us to drop
everything and push forward with all these changes before we put work
into getting the new IRCC in place.

>> 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.

Two members of the CC, and now myself, are saying that they do have
authority. Now, the CC may be involved in these discussions and have
final say in ratification if there are problems (just like with any
Council), but given the expertise of the IRCC it's delegated to them
to move forward with how they best feel the Scope should be handled.

I understand that there have been problems in the past, but the new CC
has made it a priority to improve these relations and work more
collaboratively with the IRCC.

Please give us a chance :)

-- 
Elizabeth Krumbach // Lyz // pleia2
http://www.princessleia.com