> I also used to wonder what was being discussed behind closed doors.
We shouldn't have to wonder. If it really is that boring, fine, but it
should be up to me to decide how I spend my time.
The posted minutes are just a summary and results of the discussions and
votes. They don't tell me what was seen as pros and cons and how they were
I have no idea what the individual board members think. Even when there is
a unanimous vote, I still don't know why they voted that way.
I have no idea what the board or any of the members thinks their roll is
regarding PyCon US, something I care deeply about. I have had to have
face to face conversations to hear some a surprising opinion as to it's
direction. That person is not running this year, so we don't need to worry
about if that makes any sense or we should vote him out.
But it was a very short conversation and we didn't have time to talk about
it. If I could read the archives, I wouldn't need to talk about it, nor
would I be surprised. I may disagree, that's fine. Being surprised, I
have a problem with that.
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Diana Clarke <diana.joan.cla...@gmail.com>
> Before I was on the board, I also used to wonder what was being
> discussed behind closed doors. Spoiler alert: it's far less exciting
> than you might expect. As Tim Peters once put it: "Exciting as
> watching rocks sleep? Yup, but essential - the glory of serving on the
> Board isn't for everyone ;-)".
> Having now served on the board, I can confirm that the meeting minutes
> published every few weeks pretty accurately reflect our actionable
> discussions. These twice monthly meetings are an hour long which
> doesn't leave much time for real discussion. For the most part, these
> meetings are just used to cast votes on the resolutions you see listed
> in the meeting minutes. Most of the actual discussion happens prior to
> the meetings on the PSF board mailing list.
> Even so, the vast majority of email on the PSF board mailing list just
> revolves around grant requests for regional conferences, workshops,
> etc. The new Grants Working Group is starting to take on more and more
> of those requests which will hopefully free up the board for more
> strategic work. That said, I suspect people think the PSF board is
> more hands-on than it actually is. For the most part, the Python
> community sits on the shoulders of individual volunteers with no
> official PSF titles (and the PSF staff, of course). The PSF board has
> very little to do with PyCon US or PyPI, for example.
> Baby just woke up, so quickly now (and please excuse any typos). In an
> effort to address some of the past concerns around transparency &
> communication, the PSF:
> - promptly publishes meeting minutes & resolutions online
> - retired the old private psf-members mailing list and created this
> new public mailing list
> - opened up pretty much all of the historically private PSF wiki content
> - sends twice monthly emails to this list with grant summaries,
> meeting minute links, etc
> - has two bloggers broadcast community success stories, PSF news, etc
> I hope that helps clarify the kinds of discussions the PSF board has
> during the meetings and on the board mailing list, as well as the
> current efforts around transparency. There's always room for
> improvement, so do let the board know if you have any fresh ideas on
> this front. Bonus points for having the time to help implement them.
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Carl Karsten <c...@personnelware.com>
> > All of the people nominated for the PSF board are good people who will do
> > good things. If things were running smooth, I wouldn't really care who
> > elected.
> > But once again, we see people asking questions due to lack of
> > So once again, I ask: What will you do about it?
> > --
> > Carl K
> > _______________________________________________
> > PSF-Community mailing list
> > PSF-Community@python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
PSF-Community mailing list