Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
Ian said he'll send over his notes, but I'm impatient so I'll have a go :)
Thanks for your impatience. :)
The issues that were touched included:
I found quite similar things in my private log - hoping to review the
recording later to sort out missing ideas. I'll try to comment only
on these points which might have taken not completely into account because
of the time limit.
* Someone proposed that the leader makes the initial list of members which
would then be voted upon, not sure; I would maintain my position that
people should be nominating themselves, rather than the leader naming
them - I don't believe we clarified this point
I don't know who did this proposal but letting the leader pick the soc-ctte
people out of a number of people that explicitely volunteered to work in the
soc-ctte (it makes no sense to pick people that do not volunteer to do some
work) might be a resonable alternative.
BTW, we did not discuss whether certain positions should exclude that a
person is a member of the soc-ctte at the same time. For instance I'm
unsure whether the leader should be a member at the same time which might
perfectly happen under some circumstances if we decide that soc-ctte stays
for two years stable and one of its members is successfully running for DPL.
The opposition to the idea of not having any vetting of candidates was
that there would be no accountability, no way to remove people who are
perceived to be bad, or inactive.
Proposal to address this was to have yearly approval voting of soc-ctte
members, whereby the developers would be able to tick off a particular
member and remove them that way.
For these case I'd alternatively suggest kind of a soc-ctte internal voting
mechanism to sort out those who shouldn't be a member for whatever reason
It wasn't particularly clear what would
be done after that (mostly by time constraints during the
discussion...); how much non-approval would the members have to get in
order to get removed; whether the removed members would have to be
replaced, when and how would the replacement be done (appointment by
leader? and then voting?). It was also proposed that only one half of
the committee members go up for this kind of an approval vote each year.
The reason was that we need some kind of stability. IMHO we do not have
such a high frequency of "soc-ctte business cases" (furtunately) that
members have a chance to gather some experience in this business.
Thanks for your summary