Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: > Hello, > > Noé Lopez <[email protected]> skribis: > >>> I filed the above issue almost three months ago precisely so we’d >>> have time to go through the whole process. If we start now, we’ll >>> be in limbo for two months. >>> >>> Perhaps we need a group of people appointed as overseers of GCDs and >>> of the GCD process to reduce dilution of responsibility? >> >> What responsibilities are we talking about? > > Updating the GCD process itself (the topic of this thread), doing > bookkeeping, ensuring that things move forward (what happened to the GCD > about the bootloader API?). > > Ludo’.
Makes sense, although I thought that the last one was already the responsibility of the sponsors. It seems to me though that this is not what happened in reality. This is just a feeling and I have no data to backup this claim. I think the idea of a GCD team is good, you can count me in (after the release is done 😅). But I’d like to keep its responsibilities as low as possible, to avoid team members having increased influence on GCDs. Anyhow, here’s my ideas for improvement of the process: - Reinforce the role of sponsors as timekeepers and consensus facilitators, to ensure that discussions are always moving towards consensus. - Provide mail templates to clarify the roles of everyone and what is expected at each step. For example to clarify that the submission period is not for discussion. WDYT? Have a nice day, Noé
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
