New roles in the Ubuntu IRC team

[Chris Oattes]

> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 15:43,  <chris at cjo20.net> wrote:
>> It seems that the list of duties is basically a list of things that the
>> IRCC should be doing themselves already. If they are saying 'we do not
>> have enough time to be doing the things we should be doing', then there
>> either needs to be
> 
> That is why this proposal exists, to fix the above. Delegation is
> appropriate when work is overwhelming the current workforce.

But the blocker on most issues in the IRCC tends (or at least tended) to be the IRCC itself, not the issues getting brought to their attention. Issues were raised as soon as they were noticed, but could take over 6 months for a simple solution to be passed by the IRCC. 

> 
>> a) A different set of people on the IRCC
> 
> This is doable via elections, no change needed in policy or organization.
> 
>> b) More people on the IRCC
> 
> The IRCC is currently set to five members. We cannot change that, but
> we can request the CC to change it. Frankly, I would not do it. Bigger
> councils are less effective, not more, in making policy decisions.
> Ensuring that stuff gets done, which is the meaning of the current
> proposal, is a better way forward. Growing the Council can harm the
> parts of our process that still *do* work, and will not improve the
> stuff we're failing at.
> 

If people are championing certain areas of the community, surely they are the best placed to make decisions about those areas (as the IRCC clearly doesn't have time to monitor them at the moment), yet they would have no real say in what actually happens to the area they are championing. I don't see how not including the people that would understand their specific areas in the final decision about those areas is logical. 

>> c) No IRCC.
> 
> The IRCC exists by mandate from the Community Council, and they can of
> course get rid of it. We can not just dissolve ourselves.

But the Community and the IRCC can at least ask for it to be dissolved if they wish, and put forward a reasoned case to the CC. 

> There are
> other problems with this option as well:
> 
> * freenode requires groups such as Ubuntu to have a set of Group
> Contacts. The IRCC enables us to work on freenode. If you want to call
> the Group Contacts assembly by some other name than "IRCC", fine. But
> we can't get rid of it.

But this doesn't just have to be a group of 5 people. 

> 
> * As you say below yourself, we need a body with the ability of
> resolving conflicts. Again, you can call it by some other name than
> "IRCC", but we can't get rid of it.

But it doesn't have to be a group of 5 people who are responsible for making all decisions about the IRC community as well, it can be a separate entity. 

> 
>> That way individuals cannot block
>> progress on specific items (It was, quite frankly, amazing just how many
>> meetings Jussi couldn't make when there was a topic of discussion on the
>> agenda which disagreed with his viewpoint, yet "couldn't" be discussed
>> without him present as he was interested in the matter).
> 
> This is an unfounded, personal attack and not very becoming of members
> of our community. I hope I don't have to see this kind of slander
> again. You don't know why any certain person might be away for a
> while, and no, you are not welcome to make malign guesses.
> 

It is neither unfounded nor is it an attack. It is a specific example of one of the reasons I stepped down as an op. There were problems which needed to be addressed, which I was told to put on the agenda. When it came to the meeting, on more than one occasion, I was told that the item could either not be discussed or progressed in any way unless Jussi was present, each time adding at least 2 weeks to the process of solving the issue. I put aside my time to try and help the community, yet the time was wasted because 1 person could not attend the meeting (for whatever the reason was). I could have dedicated 100 hours a week to the issue, yet because someone else couldn't attend for 1 hour in a week, any progress would have been blocked. And at the time I was genuinely amazed by the fact that a single member of the IRCC could completely block any discussion of a topic for so long by not turning up to a meeting, whether done specifically for that reason or not. 

> More to the point, we will not have democracy in Ubuntu, it will not
> work. And we certainly will not have the kind of free-for-all that you
> are proposing.


I am not proposing a "free-for-all". I am advocating a system where members of the community can effectively contribute to the community, guided by more senior members in a way that would allow a more rapid resolution to issues in a far more open and public manner. 


Chris (Seeker`)