On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> What is the benefit of 2) ? Can't the MOTU team do the selection in the > >> voting? > >> If there's some people motu-sru would remove, I would hope for the MOTU > >> team to > >> remove them too in the voting. > > > > The large benefit of allowing the existing members of motu-sru to > > select amoung the volunteers is to ensure that the team works well > > together. If there is a removal with which MOTU disagree, such > > objection ought be raised in response to the motu-sru publication of > > the candidates. > > > > While I can't be entirely sure, I suspect there will be time > > between the publication of the slate of candidates and MOTU Council > > configuring the appropriate polls for selection. > > I am strongly opposed to pre-selection. We have had cases in the past > where a non-transparent pre-selection process resulted in a very limited > and from the perspective of at least a significant slice of the community > very unsuitable set of choices. > I'm also opposed to opaque membership processes, *however* I also think that current team members are in a good position (in most cases, IMO better than MOTU-at-large) to judge candidates. I personally think if MOTU are just going to pick random people because they've heard of them or something, then we're better off having MOTU SRU making pre-selections (not final selections). > As an organization consisting largely of volunteers, the legitimacy of our > management teams comes from the fact that MOTU have selected them. Once > there is a pre-selection, this legitimacy is lost. If someone volunteers > that might be problematic, I think that we should trust the MOTU to do the > right thing. Personally, I'm not at all opposed to MOTU discussing the > advantages and disadvantages of various candidates. That would, of > course, include the current motu-sru. I believe that whatever concerns > there may be that consider motu-sru to want pre-selection, I think that > with some constructive discussion as we move to a vote the can be managed > transparently in an effective way. > Well, I'm not sure if legitimacy is neccesarily lost. Some is I suppose is, but the team members are still MOTUs so the question is really whether a subset of MOTU should do some selection or whether the whole thing, top-to-bottom, should be handled by MOTU-at-large. Ideally I would like the entire MOTU team deciding teams but issues I see are: * many MOTU don't vote in the first place. I don't believe we've ever gotten over 50%. Most votes during MOTU Meetings are 4-8 people. * historically I don't see where we've been able to comprehensively vett people without devolving into a flamefest. * time consuming. Giving time for comments, time for nominatiions, time for voting, etc. can easily make the process of getting new members take at least 1 month. Perhaps we can put some things in place to mitigate these issues. /me crawls back under his rock. -Jordan
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
