Meetings and mailiglists/decision finding process

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 14.08.2007 19:41, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
> 
> [massive snip]
> Nearly all projects face the same problems (some do sometimes, others to often)

Sure -- but I was in FESCo for one year and there it worked much better.
 Seems people were more interested in Extras then.

>> - only meet on IRC every second week
> *with* a defined agenda in place

Well, the topic list is in the wiki. What precisely what you like to be
more defined?

What I'd like to see more: Status updates from the *task-owners* before
the meetings, so we can talk about solving the problems only and can do
so even if the owners is not around (if needed).

>> - only meet on IRC all four week or when there is a need to
> experience (somewhat limited in my case) shows this to be an overkill sometimes

Likely.

>> - somehow accept stuff on the mailing lists if possible. Kind of "send a
>> proposal, if some people give a "+1" on the list and no one objects from
>> the SIG within some days consider it accepted". Sure, it's often not
>> that easy and we needed to work out more details for such a scheme, but
>> it could be  or something into that direction. That way the SIG or EPEL
>> contributors get more influence and we might need the Steering Committee
>> only if a decision can't be found
> If there's a set of points to be discussed with some initial seeding
> of pros and cons, the mailing list might function as a thermometer as
> to how an IRC meet would go if it were called for the same issue
> 
>> - weekly status mail from the owners of major tasks
> This would actually serve well if summed up monthly as to "what was achieved"

Well both things would be nice, but have a serious problem: someone
would need to write such stuff up -- that's a boring task which often
nobody really wants to do.

CU
knurd