Post election IrcTeam/IrcCouncil changes

[Jussi Schultink]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>  Matthew East wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>
>  Elizabeth Krumbach wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Nathan Handler <nhandler at ubuntu.com> <nhandler at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>  * The Council will have a chairman with a casting vote, appointed by
> the Community Council
>
>
> The IRCC can have this position if they want and request that the CC
> appoint someone, if not they can remove it from the document. Just let
> us know.
>
> No, this is standard policy in CC and TB and I would prefer to leave it in
> place for the IRCC and other delegated boards. If it's not in the delegation
> guidelines, it should be. In general, we'll appoint the chairman that the
> council prefers, but we reserve the right to do otherwise if needed.
>
>
>  As far as I know, none of the delegated councils have this position,
> and it isn't part of the delegation guidelines. Personally I don't
> think I've ever seen the need for a chairman in these boards and I
> would generally prefer to encourage such councils to escalate an issue
> to the CC as appropriate where there is no clear consensus or a
> deadlock among council members because such an issue would obviously
> be delicate and would probably warrant taking further advice. If you
> really want to push the idea, I think that it should be discussed
> first at a CC meeting. I don't think it's fair to push it into the IRC
> Council guidelines before there is a clear policy for it in our
> delegation guidelines.
>
>
>  AIUI the Forums do have a Chair, and those were the template for us when
> we formulated the delegation process, so I'm surprised. I would be surprised
> if it were contentious that (a) someone be the designated lead, and (b) they
> have a casting vote, and (c) they be appointed by the CC.
>
> I think escalation to the CC is not necessarily dependent on deadlock, it
> may also just reflect unhappiness in the community or in the council
> concerned.
>

I think what people maybe are forgetting here is a deadlock can easily be
created by an abstaining member. Abstinence can be for a variety of reasons,
a simple +0 or maybe involvement in the issue at hand. In these cases a
chairman with a casting vote is needed and it would make the running much
easier.

As I mentioned earlier from my mobile, I think its essential to also have a
leader who provides direction and keeps the focus. This ensures that the
group does not get distracted and maintains the governance area it is
supposed to.

To Matthew, you mentioned it should not be pushed on us, however the clause
has been in our charter for a very long time, just that it hasn't been
enforced or followed up on.

Hope this helps

Jussi.



> Mark
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20091223/29d020fc/attachment.html>