New roles in the Ubuntu IRC team

[Juha Siltala]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57, Melissa Draper <melissa at meldraweb.com> wrote:

> If we need to have appointed representatives to ensure that topical
> issues get heard, then there is something wrong with the IRCC itself.
> Indeed, we have already had people taking responsibility for promoting
> certain issues to the IRCC and attempting to ensure the following up
> of said issues, self appointed champions of a cause so to speak.
> They've come away disappointed.

There is indeed something wrong with the IRCC, both generally as an
institution, and with the current IRCC in particular. This is evident
from the simple fact that stuff gets left undone or gets done very
slowly (and by a precious few people).

This proposal is an attempt to fix the former, institutional problem
which will remain regardless of the composition of the Council if we
do nothing. The upcoming elections might fix the latter by installing
a better set of councillors, unless people are too afraid to run for
such stressful positions (again, assuming we do nothing now).

I'd like to see other, positive suggestions if this one seems
insufficient. "No" alone is not a very constructive approach,
especially as you don't seem to have any concrete worries about this
suggestion doing any harm either. Your greatest fear seems to be
"nothing will get done in the future either."

> We should be listening to all our operators input, not just the ones
> who are appointed to special roles.

Indeed this is the case presently, and will be the case in the future.
How does this suggestion make things any worse? The proposal is not
"let's stop listening to all but a handful of ops." It's "let's
improve our chances of hearing eveyone."

-- 
Juha Siltala
http://ubuntu.com