Call for comments on IRCC nominees

[Jussi Kekkonen]

2009/12/18 Michael Lustfield <mtecknology at ubuntu.com>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:13:43 +0200
> Juha Siltala <juha at siltala.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 09:03 +0000, Matthew East wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I for one did certainly not nominate myself for a committee that could
>> be replaced by a shell script. I am human, and the IRC Council deals
>> with humans and their interactions. I am prepared to deal with issues as
>> they appear, not to work on an assembly line, so let's stop looking at
>> organization charts and take care of the issues in real life instead.
>>
>> I do undestand that clear guidelines are generally a good thing that
>> will speed things up and reduce the cost of dealing with humans. This is
>> what all institutions are all about. But please let me stress this one
>> more time: we want to have the right people on board and we can figure
>> everything out. Prolonging this process is not very helpful.
>>
> I have to disagree somewhat. Clear guidelines set specifics about issues
> that come up. Each and every individual we deal with will be somewhat
> different; it's still important to have guidelines that are followed.
>
> I spent a while typing an example but decided it would be better to let
> you think up your own.
>
> - --
> Michael Lustfield
> Kalliki Software
>
> Network and Systems Administrator
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAksrr+4ACgkQ3y7Nst6YLGXzywCcD9Jloq2d78VFc5/8L9aCHbzZ
> grEAoJg1XvP/dE8O5orJAG7AlNTjwbxO
> =Rrvf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

...and that doesn't affect to IRCC-selection whatsoever, unless the
position and function of IRCC changes radically, but this isn't the
plan, isn't it?
I really do agree that we do need clear guidelines and procedures, but
we need also the people.
Let's keep this thread in  getting IRCC full, also feel free to work
on the guidelines. (: (thanks Nathan)

Peace, love and happiness, free hugs in -ops channel, just ask me

-- 
Jussi Kekkonen, Tm_T
  Ubuntu/KDE developer  tmt at ubuntu.com
  Finnish LUG Linux in schools project leader jussi.kekkonen at flug.fi