Ubuntu Wiki

old Comments on ForumsGovernance

Comments by Ryan

"Appointing or recalling administrators moderators and forums staff. The criteria for these appointments are ultimately up to the FC."

• This is unacceptable. We current have a open selection process of choosing staff between all staff members. I WILL NOT agree to what is mentioned here.
• There also needs to be a criteria about past staff, if they have been relieved of their duties they are not eligible for a FC position. I am not interested in hearing why this can't be included, but that it is included.
• I am also requiring my position be life long as FC member unless I decide to leave.
• There needs to be more clarification on the FC election process. As I understood this last night the process was this: If a position opened on the FC, we would make a post on the forums allowing people to apply. Now, lets say 5 people applied and after the FC reviewed the applications only 3 of them meet the criteria. Those three would be submitted to the CC. It needs to be clear that the CC cannot just elect whomever they wish to the FC without the FC being involved.

The FC are only there to serve a purpose of dispute resolution and voting in ubuntu members in the future. Nothing more.

I stand very firm on these items.

Also, this is the summary I posted to our staff. And is what I took from the meeting.

Well the call/meeting went better then I had thought it would. I think we have a good plan in place and a draft is being written now. The summarization is:

• No terms for staff/Admins
• 3 Year terms for FC
• FC will be seperate from Admins, but could be consist of admins/staff
• There will be 5 seats on the FC
• Intiially setup with the 3 current admins and two others
• FC canidates will have to me a certain criteria in order to apply
• FC will suggest and pass the canidates to the CC for election.
• FC will perform the following duties: 1. Elect ubuntu members 2. Resolve issues that are not resolved in the resolution center, if the issue is not resolved by the FC it will be pass to the CC. 3. Resolve inter-staff issues, if the person in question holds a seat on the FC they do not get to have a suggestion.
• FC members should attend CC meetins to see how the election process for ubuntu members is done
• FC should submit a monthly report the CC, this is something all councils are going to be required todo.

I think that pretty much sums it up. A large change but not one that blows the ship out of the water.

Comments by matthew

In addition to the objections mentioned above by Ryan, I would like to point out a couple of things that, while less important, are still in need of adjustment...

• Hold "meetings" regularly and visibly. Meetings can either be in IRC in the "ubuntu-meeting" channel or in a special, publicly visible area or sub-forum.

--this still makes no sense. Regular meetings about what? Progress reports? This would just be a waste of time. "Well, guys, here we are. Glad you took an hour out of your work/play/life for this meeting. Anyone have any new business? Old business? No? Nothing?!" I have an image of the teacher calling out, "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?" with no response. The forums leadership are already extremely accessible and can/do deal with things in a prompt manner without making people wait until "the next meeting." I suggest we not load down the FC with unnecessary and meaningless work.

"Several people have raised concerns about the CC's ability to meaningfully appoint forum council members when the CC members are not particularly involved in the day-to-day actions of the forums. It should be pointed out that the CC is not involved in the day-to-day actions of many other consuils." --Which leads me to believe it probably shouldn't have a say in the choosing of the leaders in those contexts either and shouldn't get involved unless there is a Code of Conduct violation or major dispute within those councils. Really, let the parts of the community govern themselves in a good manner, let them choose their own leadership, and if they can't do that without violating the Code of Conduct then tell them they can't be an official Ubuntu project...that really is all the authority you need to wield, anything more becomes (or at least appears to be) a power grab.

Comments by Timothy

While I agree with matthew comments.

This draft still reads of the forums being run as you would a business which the forums is not.

I have never seen any of those who have been involved in this draft show up on the very forum they are attempting to take over. There has been no reaching out to staff by those involved. Sure you say we can voice our feelings on this wiki or join in on some voip sessions at uds-mtv but this does not mean that our feelings will be listened to or heard. I don't feel the parties involved have listened at all.

The fact still remains after reading this draft that if things are not done how the drafters want, this issue will not be resolved.

Comments by Mike Basinger

Per Matthew's comments about meeting. It is to give people an open format to make comments (good/bad) about the forums. The forum could run meeting via a sub-forum, but IRC seem best for quick and open communication. How meetings are run are totally up for discussion.

As for the CC deciding FC members, the initial FC has been decided, that is the current forums admins. Future FC would present themselves to the forums and then to the CC in a similar way the people apply for Ubuntu membership. It is mostly to make sure that are active in the community, take do uphold the Code of Conduit. The draft has the requirements;

• - The nominees active status as an Ubuntu member (essential).

  - The nominees support from at least one active forum staff member (essential). - Opinions and testimonials (positive and negative) from current members of the forums council; - Opinions and testimonials from current forums staff; - Opinions and testimonials from Ubuntu Members, Ubunteros, and other active participants in the forums; - Clear evidence of activity within the forums (quality, quantity and duration);