Call for comments on IRCC nominees

[Matthew East]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Chris Oattes <mailinglist at cjo20.net> wrote:
> I fail to see how anyone can nominate themselves, or promote others for a
> role that is essentially, at present, undefined. The relationship between
> the IRCC, CC, Freenode staff and other ops should be determined, along
> with the responsibilites of the people sitting on the IRCC before people
> are put forward for the position. The alternative is electing people to
> the IRCC and telling them what their role is afterwards; a role they may
> not be best suited for.

While I respect your point of view, I can't agree. All of those who
have nominated themselves for the role of IRCC member know what they
are getting into because the IRCC has been a body which has existed
now for several years, and has a charter with an obvious and crucial
remit for the IRC community. There may well be clarifications and
review that are needed to the governance processes, and indeed that is
the sort of thing that every governance body in the community
undertakes on a constant and ongoing basis, but that's not the same as
saying that nominees for this role have *no* idea what they are
getting into: they certainly do.

Incidentally we've had some great feedback on the nominees, both
publically and privately. That is what this thread is about, so thank
you very much to those people who have contributed those comments, and
keep them coming.

-- 
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF