[TEAM] Vote on changes to the meeting structure

[flocculant at gmx.co.uk]

On 16/10/15 21:13, Pasi Lallinaho wrote:
> Since the meetings have been far apart, and not many people have been 
> around, let's do the voting on the meeting structure changes on the 
> mailing list. Here's the proposal again for clarity:
>
>
> 1) Stop running the "Team updates" section
>
> Pasting the updates in a meeting means more work (through having to 
> memorize/note down items) for contributors. It also means that those 
> who can't attend the meeting (which means many people per meeting), 
> can't paste the updates unless somebody does this for them.
>
> Since we now have a timeline tab [2] in the tracker, most of these 
> updates can be seen live.
>
> The only real change in action contributors would need to take would 
> apply to work items. Practically this means that everything that could 
> be worth mentioning for people outside the team - or added in the 
> release notes - should be in the blueprints. Doing the updates like 
> this also improves their findability. As I see it, this isn't much 
> different from what we currently do, or at least what I try to do.
>
> Finally, the updates that aren't worth/important enough to add to the 
> blueprints could still be shared in the meeting, thus...
>
> 2) Rename the "Announcements" section to "Updates and Announcements"
>
> This is just semantics, but it should be done to avoid confusion and 
> be more accurate.
>
>
> Team members, cast your vote by sending +1, -1 or +/-0 on this list. 
> If you wish to vote privately, you cand send a mail to Simon or me 
> (you'll find the emails - or can ask on IRC).
>
> We'll have a week for the votes. The results are gathered and 
> published after next Friday (or after 21UTC next Friday) when me and 
> Simon crash on IRC at the same time.
>
> Cheers,
> Pasi
>
The other side of this being - how long do we wait as a team for members 
of that team to vote?

I see no reason why we'd not be good to expect a response for something 
'less important' as no more than a month.

For something that has importance to Xubuntu as a whole I would expect 
some response somewhat faster - even if that response was 'foo' caught 
me on the phone, I'm not able to vote, my feeling is *this*'

Thus we can take into consideraration people's POV.

example - there are 14 (currently) of us

we have a vote, two of us are awol (ish), team is 14

vote gets taken and stands at 6 +, 6- with 2 to vote, 1 does, the second 
does *life* stuff*

at 2 weeks, the vote is now 7+,6- and the vote carries

just thinking aloud here - but how long should a team wait for one of 
it's members before making that member's vote null, you have to bear in 
mind here the length of a support cycle, at 6 months should we wait for 
someone taking 4 months to make a preference?

just a thought, provocative perhaps, but just a thought ;)