On Tuesday, August 02, 2011 04:04:31 PM Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/02/2011 12:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bryce Harrington <br...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> Sounds like a good idea to me. It makes it analogous to other processes > >> such as the sponsorship, MIR, SRU, etc. processes that applicants may > >> already be familiar with. > > > > And drastically different from the other team membership processes > > (Ubuntu Membership, Kubuntu Membership, etc.) that applicants may > > already be familiar with. > > True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would > work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to > adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also > be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes.
Speaking as someone who considers Kubuntu membership (as part of Kubuntu Council) and developer (as part of kubuntu-dev), I don't think this is a good idea. As difficult as finding a good time for a meeting can be, I think the interactive discussion is an important part of it. I would hate to change the process into just a review of static content. I believe this proposed change would be a step backwards. Membership boards already use email voting on a case by case basis to address problems with sync when needed. I think that's sufficient. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
