On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Scott Kitterman <<a href="mailto:ubuntu@kitterman.com">ubuntu@kitterman.com</a>> wrote: <div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d">> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> What is the benefit of 2) ? Can't the MOTU team do the selection in the >> voting? >> If there's some people motu-sru would remove, I would hope for the MOTU >> team to >> remove them too in the voting. > >     The large benefit of allowing the existing members of motu-sru to > select amoung the volunteers is to ensure that the team works well > together.  If there is a removal with which MOTU disagree, such > objection ought be raised in response to the motu-sru publication of > the candidates. > >     While I can't be entirely sure, I suspect there will be time > between the publication of the slate of candidates and MOTU Council > configuring the appropriate polls for selection. </div>I am strongly opposed to pre-selection.  We have had cases in the past where a non-transparent pre-selection process resulted in a very limited and from the perspective of at least a significant slice of the community very unsuitable set of choices. </blockquote><div> I'm also opposed to opaque membership processes, *however* I also think that current team members are in a good position (in most cases, IMO better than MOTU-at-large) to judge candidates. I personally think if MOTU are just going to pick random people because they've heard of them or something, then we're better off having MOTU SRU making pre-selections (not final selections).  </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> As an organization consisting largely of volunteers, the legitimacy of our management teams comes from the fact that MOTU have selected them.  Once there is a pre-selection, this legitimacy is lost.  If someone volunteers that might be problematic, I think that we should trust the MOTU to do the right thing.  Personally, I'm not at all opposed to MOTU discussing the advantages and disadvantages of various candidates.  That would, of course, include the current motu-sru.  I believe that whatever concerns there may be that consider motu-sru to want pre-selection, I think that with some constructive discussion as we move to a vote the can be managed transparently in an effective way. </blockquote></div> Well, I'm not sure if legitimacy is neccesarily lost. Some is I suppose is, but the team members are still MOTUs so the question is really whether a subset of MOTU should do some selection or whether the whole thing, top-to-bottom, should be handled by MOTU-at-large. Ideally I would like the entire MOTU team deciding teams but issues I see are:   * many MOTU don't vote in the first place. I don't believe we've ever gotten over 50%. Most votes during MOTU Meetings are 4-8 people.   * historically I don't see where we've been able to comprehensively vett people without devolving into a flamefest.   * time consuming. Giving time for comments, time for nominatiions, time for voting, etc. can easily make the process of getting new members take at least 1 month. Perhaps we can put some things in place to mitigate these issues. /me crawls back under his rock. -Jordan