On 12/10/14 00:35, Moray Allan wrote:
> - This draft comes from collaborative editing with Tassia and Tincho.
> But we disagree on some minor points in our individual preferred
> versions. :)
There is not that much disagreement anyway :)
My biggest doubt was about video-team; but, as you mentioned in your
post, there is a strong argument for grouping it with the rest of the
infrastructure. Also, if the volunteer coordination is managed by a
different team, then the whole infrastructure team is not as huge as I
pictured it in the beginning. And I believe that more integration with
the rest of the infrastructure team would improve things for all involved.
> - Should we have a separate "Communication" team, with {press and PR,
> website content, publishing the CFP and general announcements, dealing
> with feedback@dc}? There could be benefits, but equally I worry about
> trying to create our own version of the Debian publicity team, and about
> going against the "avoid overlapping roles between subteams", since
> other teams would have to work closely with this one if it is to have a
> real purpose.
I don't see that function as deserving a top-level team, as it would be
a much smaller team in comparison. I think this function, if implemented
as a team, should be part of the Coordination team, or perhaps the
Content team.
> - In the slightly longer term, should we make subteam leads
> automatically/ex-officio become members of the DebConf Committee, for
> venue decisions etc.?
I think so. Adding some external people, as Lucas pointed out, seems
like a good idea too.
There has not been much discussion on this, so I guess most people
thinks this is a good idea?
--
MartÃn Ferrari (Tincho)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature