New roles in the Ubuntu IRC team

[Melissa Draper]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Elizabeth Krumbach <lyz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Juha Siltala <topyli at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think this is worth repeating. There is currently a lot of work on
> the shoulders of all board and council members within the Ubuntu
> project and lack of delegation is a problem. Councils should be
> responsible for making sure things get done, NOT doing all the work
> themselves - in fact, I think something is wrong if the Council
> members are doing everything.

This is true. However this is not the situation. The IRCC isn't doing
everything.

Rather, it isn't doing anything. Or when it does do things, it does
them wrong by not listening at all or outright dismissing with
internal comments such as "but this should shut people up, erm, I mean
satisfy people ;)".

> That said, I like this proposal as long as it doesn't add bureaucracy
> to the appeals, proposals or any other process within the community
> (the "policy review" role is the only one that troubles me here). It's
> clear from casual observation and now the Ubuntu Community Survey[0]
> that the CC put together with Jono Bacon that the bureaucratic barrier
> is already a problem.

I can't see how this won't add another layer.

People are naturally teaming up on interest/focus areas. This is
*organic*. There's already natural appointing of
champions/spokespeople on an issue-by-issue basis.

There's nothing wrong with focus teams.

What is achieved by appointing particular people to particular areas
rather than letting (and encouraging) these teams form and designate
spokespeople on an as-needed basis or by actioning to particular
people in a meeting?

> And as small as I think it may be, I love the idea of changing the
> meeting name to "IRC Team meeting" - it may seem symbolic at first but
> I think it's absolutely a step in the right direction, I think more
> openness in the team will go a long way.

As I said before, this is something that could easily be applicable
across the community, not just in the IRC quarter.

> Thanks for putting this together.
>
> [0] http://www.jonobacon.org/2011/10/24/ubuntu-community-survey-results/
>
> --
> Elizabeth Krumbach // Lyz // pleia2
> http://www.princessleia.com
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc