On 03/07/06, Jan Vancura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will be doing these things for as long as I'm available for doing them, with or without a title/role/whatever
I think this illustrates the central point of the "anti-contact point" position: those people who have the time and the commitment to fulfill that role will make themselves known by their actions. So, if we can get things done without bureaucratic demarcation of duties, then we may as well. The Doc Team reports that this approach works well for them. I'm leaning towards us having no official contact point, for the time-being. In the future, we may want to create a contact point for specific scenarios - members of the press, for example - but at the moment we're small and nimble, so why spoil that?
- Contacting Canonical (silbs), representing the team elsewhere
Does Jane (silbs) find it useful to have a single point of contact? If Canonical find it easier to have a contact point, then I think we should respect that. However, as Jane reads this list and is present on #ubuntu-meeting, she's part of the process anyway.
- Scheduling, chairing and summarising meetings - Finding people for special tasks (wiki management, IRC operators, LP team admins, graphics designers etc.) and asking them to do them on behalf of the team. - Advertising the team elsewhere (forums, etc.), perhaps not needed anymore.
This is something we should do as a team. Now that we're having active debate on the mailing list, we can work this sort of thing out amongst ourselves. Previously, when the team was languishing, it needed one or two people to actively grab hold of people and encourage them to do things. You did a fantastic job there and I can't see any reason why that would stop, unless you wanted to. Now that the ML is getting a few messages a day, from a number of different people, I think we can organise this sort of thing on the list, though.
OTOH, I believe project leaders could form a sort of council to vote on structural decisions, such as new projects, changes in the means of communication.
Why not just debate it on the list and then make the final decision in a live meeting? Provided there's plenty of warning, and perhaps we offer a way to vote if people can't make the meeting, then the team as a whole should decide this sort of thing. We're only ever going to have a few projects. Really active people may join us but there may not be a vacancy for a project leader - why prevent them from making decisions? If the team grew so huge that such a system were unwieldy, we could reconsider, but that seems unlikely. -- Matthew Revell www.understated.co.uk -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
