Søren Hansen and Michael Bienia

Nicolas Valcárcel Scerpella nvalcarcel at ubuntu.com
Mon Nov 2 14:43:07 GMT 2009

I think we are going out of focus with this, and i think here are 2
relevant ideas here:

1) This was a MUST rather than an optional desition, speaking from
myself i wouldn't volunteer myself for a position that will be dismissed
in 3 months, and if this was found as a better way from the CC, i'm ok
with that, at the end, like with country governments, be elected them to
represent ALL of us for this kind of positions, and this obviusly wasn't
a canonical or marks desition keeping in mind that Canonical employees
are the less in the CC.

2) There could be a better way to communicate this, i think it would be
less objectable if the announcement said "We decided this and we are
going to do it unless there are good reasons against" rather than "We
just did this", though i still don't have clear if it has already been
done or is going to happen in the near future.

Just as a disclaimer, i'm speaking here from myself as a community
member, and as such, i think we have way more to do than arguing against
a good desition from our governance body, at the end, that's why it's

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:57 +0000 Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> 
> wrote:
> > If the CC need to,
> >we can make direct appointments and replacements on any structure in
> >Ubuntu, and will do so.
> >
> Certainly the CC can (and if they can't you, as SABDFL, can).  That doesn't 
> mean you should.
> While the outcome in this case is clearly reasonable, I think some push 
> back about how the decision was taken is also reasonable.  As nearly as I 
> can determine, the discussion that led to this decision was all, or nearly 
> all, non-public.  I understand that there was some sense of urgency, but 
> I'm not aware of any actual need for privacy.
> Transparency in governance is an essential thing for Ubuntu (IMO).  
> Personally, I find the lack of transparency (and the negative reaction to 
> calls for transparency) unfortunate at best.  Many of the people involved 
> in Ubuntu believe that working in an open and collaborative manner to 
> produce software (and a Linux dostribution) is the best, most effective way 
> to do it.  It shouldn't be suprising to find that perspective generalized 
> to other aspects of the project.
> Scott K
> -- 
> Motu-council mailing list
> Motu-council at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/motu-council

aka nxvl
Key fingerprint = 5C4D 0C85 D9C0 98FE 11F9  DD12 524E C3CD EF58 4970
gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 654597FE

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20091102/d1802699/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list