Bug#797533: New CTTE members
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The biggest question I have is how much time do we expect TC members
> to have available for the TC.
>
> i think we've been having a lot of trouble that seems like it has a
> high probability of being related to insufficient bandwidth in TC
> members. So, I think it would be good to better understand our
> expectations in this regard before we make a call for nominations.
I think attendance at meetings as well as participation in threads,
drafting, and voting is a requirement.
I think that this amounts to between 1-6 hours a month of work;
hopefully towards the low end of that spectrum for all but the most
unusual of months.
> I think this is important enough that I'd be OK running with 6 members
> for a while if it delays things.
We can call for nominations first, and then in the nominations
confirmation phase request that people consider whether they have time
before they confirm their nomination. That will give us time to more
completely discuss this while people think about who they'd like to
nominate (or whether they'd like to nominate themselves.)
But at the end of the day, we're going to take people at their word that
they have time enough to serve on the CTTE; people's time commitments
are also going to change. [I know I've been spread very thin the past
few weeks myself.]
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off
everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the
chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had
deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves,
or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and
shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured
stinking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks
and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so
thoroughly that it had to be condemned and later demolished.
-- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4
Reply to: