On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 20:25 +0200, Peter Gantner (nephros) wrote: > Quoth Christel Dahlskjaer (on Thursday, the 14th of September): > > > At this point I only wish to comment on one particular bit, > > I am quite disappointed that you are having a meeting to discuss your > > roles when the task agreed at our meeting was that you would all > > individually write down what you wished to see yourself doing. > > It is not exclusively about the role. > There is also the fact that at the previous two meetings many of us were > missing.
I would ask then that all user representatives e-mail me individually with their personal view on how they see this role used by Saturday 15:00UTC I know that is pushing it a week back, as you had originally been given two weeks to complete that task, however, I would like to see the individual responses before they are discussed. Thanks. > It looks like with this new meeting almost all of us we will manage to > make it, which is a big improvement as we will be able to finalize > the points discussed at the other meetings. > Also a sign that things really are starting to roll now. > > > > We originally left the role fairly fluid so that you could help > > influence it, and what we asked for was that you all write down your > > personal views and send them to us before our next meeting together > > where we will look at the roles and how your ideas go with what we > > already have. > > > > Thanks for cc'ing. And I'll comment on the rest when I have a monent. > > As most (all?) of the replies didn't reach the ML I'll post a quick > summary of the replies I've received so far through the alias, as most > were more or less in the same spirit: > > > >> 0) Do we have a leader? > Not needed. We're a team, conflictng opinions are good, definitive > leader decisions not needed. > > >> 1) How do we handle URs which go MIA or are slackers? > Most are fine with the 60 day period, but that we should be flexible > with this and make longer leaves possible if required. > > >> 2) When and how are new userreps assigned? > This is pretty much already decided by userrel, of which I wasn't aware. > Elections once per year, that's it. > Vacancies most likely filled with "losers" of the last vote, or not at > all if next vote is too close and workload permits it. > > >> 3) Suspension (vacation) of URs > Goes together with point 1, wishes for flexibility were voiced, and not > too much interest in too much beaurocracy. > > Greets, > Peter > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
