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

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:

    Don> I think attendance at meetings as well as participation in
    Don> threads, drafting, and voting is a requirement.

    Don> I think that this amounts to between 1-6 hours a month of work;
    Don> hopefully towards the low end of that spectrum for all but the
    Don> most unusual of months.

Ah. So, We'd been coming at this from very different places.
I'm just throwing some random thoughts out there now.  I've been
convinced that we have an important discussion to have, but I have no
idea what position I'll be taking by the end of it.

I'll start with my goals:

1) Improve our response time to issues like the Aptitude bug and menu

2) Have enough spare cycles that we can be doing some
introspection--thinking about how we could function better, developing
internal policies and procedures, helping write down advice for people
working with us.

3) Have somewhat more engagement in internal discussions.

In terms of time, I was assuming 1-6 hours a week or soaveraging out
around 2-3 hours a week when things are busy and say an hour when they
are not, and had been concerned that I was not really living up to what
I expected.  I don't think I could do what I've done in a couple of
hours a month, and I don't think we could get better response times than
we've had over the years even with 6 hours a month especially if it were
in large clumps within the month.

One problem with bursty time allocations is that if you don't spend
enough time to keep the issues in your head, you spend a lot of time
rebuilding context.

I wonder if it would help to work from the other direction.
What sort of turn around time would we expect for bugs like the menu
policy and the aptitude  maintainer issue?

For an issue, someone has to put in a fair bit of leg work, going
through and summarizing discussions, understanding the state before
something got to the TC, etc.

However everyone else has to follow things enough to  have an informed

Also, discussions work better if people have time aligned enough to
respond within a day or so than if you're not sure if silence after a
week means that everyone agrees or no one has gotten around to reading

I fully understand that my assumptions may not be reasonable.  That's
one of the things you often find when you examine your assumptions.
Even if we want to find people who have more time it may be a gradual
transition over a few nomination cycles to get there.

I do think making our desires clear is important.  Part of it is letting
people know what they are getting into so they can decline if the fit
isn't right for them.  However, note that it works both ways: being on a
body where you wish people were able to spend more time can be just as
frustrating as being on a body where you're not able to keep up.  Also,
setting desires can help people discuss time allocation with their
management when they are talking about the impact of the TC.

so, I have no idea where we'll end up, but I think this will be a good
thing to ponder.

Reply to: