Call for comments on IRCC nominees

[Michael Lustfield]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I like that idea. It shouldn't be too hard to get everyone interested
in what's going on into one place. After the DDoS is resolved (or
another network), would it be too horrible to start discussing the
document line by line.

If another network is required; I already have my bot linking on OFTC
and it's running a MootBot type plugin. It might be a good idea if we
need to keep everyone on track.

Who knows; that idea might explode but even if that happens we can jump
right back to the discussion going on here. It would get the new
communicating with the old and would in some sense be a kind of
"passing the torche" except that we don't yet know who will be getting
that torche. :)

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:57:26 +0000
Joseph Price <pricechild at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Liz you are being amazing. Thank you very much for all of your
> replies, i'm very grateful for your patience and effort.
> 
> I simply don't understand why we need a potentially non-functioning ircc.
> 
> Why can only these few future sailors take on the work and steer us in
> the right direction.
> 
> Why can't we get other members of the community to work on this NOW?
> 
> Popey. You want non-irc people on the council. Why do they have to
> wait for the power and title? (that you allege corrupts) lets wheel
> them out now and put them to work fixing any small issues? Lets prove
> their worth in this meritocracy!
> 
> On 12/16/09, Elizabeth Krumbach <lyz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> 


- -- 
Michael Lustfield
Kalliki Software

Network and Systems Administrator
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkspLokACgkQ3y7Nst6YLGV2sQCgl8ISbe6jokGGhoHFzvLJVbMR
7VMAoIs7cuEYl3Ko6dDOEGK1enyrQzV9
=Lq80
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----