New LP-liason MOTU Leaders

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:25:46 +0100 Emmet Hikory <persia at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>>> Due to lack of time, Reinhard Tartler (siretart) has chosen to resign  
>>> as the MOTU Launchpad Liason.  William Grant (wgrant) and Morten  
>>> Kjeldgaard (mok0) have stepped forward and will share these duties.
><<...>>
>
>>> Because of limited time, and also due to the lack of a satisfactory  
>>> solutions for conducting a proper poll among the MOTUs, William and  
>>> Morten have already -- on behalf of the MOTU -- given the LP developer  
>>> team feedback on the priorities of the MOTUs for the LP 3.0  
>>> development cycle (see 
https://dev.launchpad.net/VersionThreeDotO/Soyuz/Inputs 
>>>  column "T").
>
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I appreciate the two of you stepping up to do this important task.
><...>
>
>> However good this list may be, it has no legitimate basis to be 
considered 
>> a "MOTU" input.  
>> 
>> Part of our process for role transfer includes a chance for community 
>> review of such delegations.  Until this has happened (I guess we now 
have 
>> that chance), I don't see any legitimacy to speak on our behalf.
>
>
>    While I agree that the list of priorities does not include the
>expected input to be truly considered to represent MOTU priorities, I
>very much disagree that the process for role transfer is in any way 
related.
>
>    More specifically, while we have a fairly detailed process by which
>people join or leave some of our delegated teams (motu-sru,
>motu-release), we have not historically used this process for transfer
>of MOTU Leaders, including transfers since the adoption of this process
>for the delegated roles.
>
>    So, if there is a desire to have this process affect the singleton
>MOTU Leaders as well as the delegated teams, this change should be
>raised for review and discussion separately from the criticism of our
>new LP liaisons' prioritisation choices.

I think that before anyone can claim to speak for the community, the community needs to buy 
into that in some manner.  I view exactly how that is accomplished as an implementation detail.

In the case the new liaisons spoke for the community at a time when we didn't even know they 
were the liaison.

It's quite all right to describe their input as input from two MOTU who are 
generally knowlegable and having a good opinion, but there's no basis for 
them being treated as speaking for us without our consent or input.

Scott K