[TEAM] Vote on changes to the meeting structure

[Pasi Lallinaho]

On 2015-10-17 01:47, flocculant at gmx.co.uk wrote:
> 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 ;)
>
>

If the vote result was that close, it would most likely warrant further 
discussion and not carrying on with whatever was voted on. If it's 
important, and several people haven't voted after the set deadline, then 
we should consider what would be the best way to either try to get a 
hold of them - or resolve the issue without them.

Just my two cents,
Pasi

-- 
Pasi Lallinaho (knome)                » http://open.knome.fi/
Leader of Shimmer Project             » http://shimmerproject.org/
Ubuntu member, Xubuntu Website Lead   » http://xubuntu.org/