[TEAM] Vote on changes to the meeting structure
flocculant at gmx.co.uk
flocculant at gmx.co.uk
Fri Oct 16 23:10:34 UTC 2015
On 17/10/15 00:08, Pasi Lallinaho wrote:
> 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  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.
>> 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
>> 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,
I'd just be concerned about stagnation is all
More information about the xubuntu-devel