Bug#830344: Moving forward with the Project Roadmap question
El Jueves 11 Agosto 2016 21:37 CEST, Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> Ha escrito:
> On 11/08/16 at 20:17 +0200, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > 2) The TC will act as an advisor to the Roadmap Team
> > 3) The TC will not be involved as body with the Roadmap Team
> I'm not sure about those two options.
> Would (2) go further than powers already available to the TC under
> §6.1? What would it mean in practice, in terms of workflows?
Of course not.
I guess the option should be rephrased as "The TC offers to be an
advisory body to the Roadmap team".
The whole idea is that if we are not the Roadmap team, then the Roadmap team
should come up with their own processes and what exactly they want from us,
but this option winning means that we would be happy to be part of the process
as a body.
> Does (3) mean that the TC waives its §6.1 powers for Roadmap issues?
No, I wouldn't state it like that. Rather that we would not participate in the
Roadmap team regular processes, participating instead only when explicitly
asked to do so.
> Wouldn't it be better to just state that:
> 2') the TC declines to be the Roadmap team, but will of course be
> available, if necessary, under Constitution §6.1.
We will always be available. The question here is if we want to be part
of the regular workflow, or only participate when they ask us to do so.
The whole point of my proposing the vote is to make a decision on what
our involvement should be, not on the details of the workflow, which we
should either discuss later (should we choose to be the Roadmap team)
or let the Roadmap team come up with.
I hope that helped clarify,