On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <<a href="mailto:pochu@ubuntu.com">pochu@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote:<br><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">Jordan Mantha wrote:<br>
> Well, I'm not sure if legitimacy is neccesarily lost. Some is I suppose<br>
> is, but the team members are still MOTUs so the question is really<br>
> whether a subset of MOTU should do some selection or whether the whole<br>
> thing, top-to-bottom, should be handled by MOTU-at-large. Ideally I<br>
> would like the entire MOTU team deciding teams but issues I see are:<br>
> * many MOTU don't vote in the first place. I don't believe we've ever<br>
> gotten over 50%. Most votes during MOTU Meetings are 4-8 people.<br>
<br>
</div>That's not comparable. In a meeting, you need to be present on it, and you have<br>
about one minute or two to cast your vote. In this policy, you would have one<br>
week for it.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>Which doesn't seem to draw all that many more people, considering how long people have, IMO. I'm not against having a week vote by all of MOTU per se, I'm just not sure that it's much more "legitimate" than having MOTU SRU put up nominations and then having a quick (1or 2 day) vote.<br>
</div><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"><br>
> * historically I don't see where we've been able to comprehensively<br>
> vett people without devolving into a flamefest.<br>
<br>
</div>Is this in favour or against MOTU doing the vote? If against, I can't see how<br>
the SRU/Release teams doing a pre-selection (or IOW, vetoing some candidates)<br>
helps, versus the MOTU team voting other people.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>I'd much rather have MOTU SRU vetting candidates than nobody at all. If we (MOTU) can't vett (discuss qualifications, ask tough questions, etc.) people without it going sour perhaps it's better to let somebody else do it. If we can then fine. I'm just saying I see this as a potential issue.<br>
</div><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"><br>
> * time consuming. Giving time for comments, time for nominatiions,<br>
> time for voting, etc. can easily make the process of getting new members<br>
> take at least 1 month.<br>
<br>
</div>If we set it for 1 week for nominations, and one week for votes, the process<br>
would about two weeks, which sounds reasonable to me. <br></blockquote><div><br>That doesn't account for administrative delays, nominee discussions, etc. and two weeks doesn't seem like a short time to me. I want things done within a day or two. This may not be a feasible goal in the short term, but I really dislike long, drawn out processes that leave people "Pending" for extended periods.<br>
<br>-Jordan <br></div></div><br>