New roles in the Ubuntu IRC team

[Chris Oattes]

>> Rather, it isn't doing anything. Or when it does do things, it does
>> them wrong by not listening at all or outright dismissing with
>> internal comments such as "but this should shut people up, erm, I mean
>> satisfy people ;)".
>
> I find this a bit insulting. Some IRCC members are doing a lot of
> work, and I'd appreciate it if their work were not dismissed through
> vague insinuations. You're a member of the Council and can help if you
> wish, or you can undermine its work as above.
>

Your responses to the list are starting to worry me. Both Melissa and
myself have made comments about the IRCC based on personal experience.
Your response is to label these comments as 'unfounded...attacks' or
trying to dismiss them as 'insults'. In the quote above, you seem to
suggest that the IRCC shouldn't be subject to criticism as long as some of
the IRCC members are doing a 'lot' of work, regardless of whether the work
is useful, wanted or appropriate.

The only possible reasons I can think for someone taking this stance are

a) They believe the IRCC is perfect as is. This is clearly a flawed
viewpoint, as I have seen/been involved in multiple discussions which
bring up shortcomings of the IRCC. Your posts in the past indicate that
you don't believe this to be the case, and are willing to accept that the
IRCC can be improved.

b) The IRCC is above criticism. If members of the community (or even
members of the council) are not allowed to bring up criticisms about the
IRCC, how can the IRCC be serving the interests of the community? And yes,
some criticism will name certain members, as the IRCC is made up of
people, and in order to effectively describe the problem there should be
real examples given. These aren't "personal attacks", they are a report of
actual events.

c) They feel that any criticism should be done privately, to enable the
IRCC to maintain the illusion that 'everything is ok'. This isn't useful
as it doesn't allow the wider community to get involved with solving the
problems and specifically excludes them from discussions.

d) They are complicit in the actions that are being criticised. I really
hope that this isn't the case, but I would imagine that if someone is
knowingly doing the very things that are being criticised then they would
be interested in trying to dismiss the criticisms in an attempt to avoid
their part being discovered.

Whichever of the four it is, I don't see how there can be an effective
discussion with the IRCC of either the current shortcomings or possible
improvements to the IRCC while at least one of the members holds these
views.


Chris (Seeker`)