[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf organization working group and next steps



Hi Marga,

On 09/14/2014 07:55 AM, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> HI,
> 
> As this has already started for the fundraising team (with extra
> urgency due to time pressure), I'd like to point out a couple of
> things that I consider might be done better for future teams.
> 
> I consider it a mistake to mail the "current" members of a team,
> telling them that they are past members (personally, I found this very
> very troubling).
>
We hadn't realized that saying "you have helped in the past" could sound
as "you are a past member". You are right, this can definitely be
expressed in a better way so that it's clear that current members are
also being invited to participate. It will be fixed in future messages.

I think that the process of figuring out the teams
> should include:
>  1 - Talking with the current members of the team, asking them if they
> want to continue working on it in the future (but not telling them
> that they are past members).
>  2 - Inviting past members to join the current members.
>  3 - Inviting some people that are "local" to the next year DebConf to
> join the team, already asking them for a longer term commitment.
> 
As I understand, you are mainly addressing communication issues with
this proposal, and I agree that things can improved. We hope the FAQ
will alleviate the misunderstandings and help us move forward. I'm
pretty confident that we can soon reach a common ground for action.

> I think it also makes sense to send more personalized mails. i.e. "You
> worked on the talks team in DC10 and you made such a great job, would
> you be interested in joining the team once again?" instead of just
> "you are a past member of the talks team..."
> 
> And all this work should be work done in agreement and together with
> the current team members, not a complete reboot pretending that they
> don't have any say in what happens next.
> 
Sure, that's what we aim, we are sorry if it was not clear since the
beginning.

> I think these questions can be improved, particularly because you are
> asking for nominations for shadow and wizard only if one nominates
> oneself. I would prefer to be able to nominate leads, shadows and
> wizards even if I don't nominate myself.
> 
> The second question as worded here is fine and makes sense, a lead and
> a shadow should be able to work together. But in the email it had the
> addition of being the only point of including shadows and wizards,
> which I think was a mistake.
> 
Thanks again for all your comments. We are taking everything in
consideration and will take special care to the wording of future
messages. Please let us know it anything still seems weird to you.

Best regards,

Tassia.

Reply to: