On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 16:58 +0100, Matthew East wrote: > 1. The Art Council should not be responsible for granting Ubuntu > membership, because the risk is that the community won't get to know new > members or hear about good work being done in the art area, and there > is a risk of less consistency in membership appointments.
Yep, it was confusion central ;). I don't think there are any membership related issues at all with the council as far as I understand it. I think "membership" was relating more to who is contributing on the team. Not the political membership issues. > > 2. Most decisions should be taken by the whole art team, while decisions > which are contentious can be taken by the Art Council. I think this is > important to ensure that everyone in the team plays a role in the > direction of the team and to ensure that important new contributors who > do not sit on the Art Council can participate fully. > Right now, I think the AiCs are to drive the looks, and I imagine the council will probably discourse with the AiCs. Of course, until the process has proven itself, I don't expect anyone to trust the form. Trust will come. > I'm sure that number 2. will not be a problem, because no doubt in > practice the Art Council will listen carefully to the whole team. But I > am concerned about number 1. > > Hope this clarifies what I was on about! Yep. It was a political scientist and a geologist talking about panty hose. Miscommunication. Again, that's only my understanding. Sincerely, TJS
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
