Err, where I wrote "I'd rather have the council as an elected body for three years" I obviously meant to write "two".
Cheers Simon On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:46 PM Simon Steinbeiss <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > first of all thanks to Pasi and Kev to formulating and sharing the > proposal. > My comments follow inline. > > Cheers > Simon > > ------------------------------ > > > Hello, > > > > after a brief private discussion within the Xubuntu team, the team has > > decided to pursue setting up a Xubuntu Council instead of electing a new > > Xubuntu Project Lead. > > > > After this discussion, myself and Kev have been drafting a proposal for > > the council. Here it is in a nutshell. > > > > == > > > > WHAT IS THE XUBUNTU COUNCIL? > > – The Xubuntu Council (later: council) will replace the Xubuntu Project > > Lead (later: XPL) position. > > –A council term is2 years, always ending after an LTS release to allow > > long-term planning. > > > > COUNCIL MEMBERS > > – The council will consist of 3 members. > > – The members will be elected based on a CIVS [1] vote. > > – Anybody who is a member of the Xubuntu team [2] or a *direct* member > > of any of the moderated subteams [3] can nominate themselves,or be > > nominated bysomeoneelse with the candidates agreement. > > – Everybody who is member of the Xubuntu team [2] and/or a *direct* > > member of any of the moderated subteams [3] can vote. > > Just to be sure, but *direct* is meant to exlcude indirect members like other > Ubuntu teams that are members of some of our teams (like "Ubuntu Core Devs" > as part of "Xubuntu Devs")? > > > – If a council member goes missing in action for 6 months, they should > > be replaced by a new vote. > > We sort of have that now even for team members, but so far we're not > executing this very thoroughly (I'd like to think that for my period "in > office" I tried to trigger these decisions with considerately). I wonder > whether the "should" is enough here and whether we'd like to stick to the > approach that I myself followed or whether we just want to set an expiry date > instead (which would shift the trigger from being excluded to remaining > included). > > > > – If a new council member is elected mid-term, their term will still end > > after the next LTS release. > > > > COUNCIL CHAIR > > – The council will decide on a chair whose term will last for the whole > > council term. > > Wouldn't it alternatively make sense to give the council the freedom to split > the chair? So far one of the issues of finding an XPL was the 2year > commitment of a single person and this point goes a bit in that direction. > I'd rather have the council as an elected body for three years and the > council always has to have a chair/spokesperson, but who that is is up to the > council, not another general vote. > > > > – The chair will act as the official point of contact for Xubuntu. > > –If the council chair wishes to relinquish chair, a new chair is chosen > > as members (see above). > > > > OTHER BITS > > – The council is expected to take action,or respondto any issue within 2 > > weeks; if appropriate and fair, the first action can be postponement. > > How often can the council postpone and for how long? (Or do we expect that > it'll always be "within reason"?) Also, I'd add that "postponement" has to be > explicit, not implicit (by not re/acting). > > > > – If the council fails toreach consensus on an issue, the Ubuntu > > Community Council acts as the final arbiter. > Why not a general vote of the xubuntu-team? Or would you say the council > mainly acts as a tie-breaker for the team votes? That is not to say that I > think that the Ubuntu CC is not a good final last resort. > > > [1] http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/ > > [2] ~xubuntu-team on Launchpad > > [3] ~xubuntu-release, ~xubuntu-dev, ~xubuntu-art, ~xubuntu-website, > > ~xubuntu-qa, ~xubuntu-doc on Launchpad > > > > == > > > > Note that while the proposal only allows people in moderated teams to be > > nominated and vote, those moderated teams are open to anyone to join - > > via sustained contributions to the project. > Yes, and I think that is a "nice" (as in: "suitable" or "meaningful") mix of > open and moderated. > > > As an example, the QA team (~xubuntu-qa) was set up for these kinds of > > social reasons; the team expects people from the testers team > > (~xubuntu-testers) to be approved to the QA team once they have shown > > sustained/substantial contributions enough. > > > > In the same spirit, we're discussing the possibility to set up other > > teams that have a similar social aspect. > > > > TEAM MEMBERS, please reply with comments on this proposal. I'm pretty > > sure this isn't the final version of what we want to vote on, so please > > do commenting rather sooner than later. > > > > Once we've voted on (and hopefully approved) a certain direction, we > > still need to at least formulate that into a section of the Xubuntu > > Strategy Document and run it through the Ubuntu Community Council. All > > of the work items are in a Launchpad blueprint [4]. > > > > Cheers, > > Pasi > > > [4] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/xubuntu-y-council > >
-- xubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
