I think however that we need a common ground on what a UR actually is, this is for three reasons:
1) The users should have a clear view on what a UR is, not having a dozen different and maybe even conflicting views.
2) We need to work together as a group, that can only be done if we have a common ground.
3) We need to set a tradition of the project for the future, if everyone is constantly reinventing the wheel, I can predict this project won't last for very long.
Cheers,
Emil / Q
On 9/14/06, Christel Dahlskjaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
