On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote: > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 23:28:28 Daniel T. Chen wrote: > > I agree with Daniel's points that we should be more cautious regarding > > policy decisions, but I think it's in our [MOTU] best interest to make > > as much of the decision process open, transparent and responsive to MOTU > > as possible. From my perspective, MC's charter is to lead MOTU, not > > restrict policy decisions to only MC [the exception being approving or > > deferring MOTU candidates]. > > Yes, sounds pretty sane. > > I especially like the idea of a charter for MC. > > I've just started an early draft of a charter for MC [1], please > correct/add/comment on it. Please also state if you think we don't need a > charter ;). > > Cheers, > Stefan. > -- > [1]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council/Charter
Agreed, I think having clear expectation is good. I was happy to see the SRU decision made at the MOTU meeting, since it affects everyone in MOTU, and I knew that we had 4 MC members there, so that the decision didn't have to be deferred until the MC meeting. At the first MC meeting, there wasn't much (or any) involvement from non-MC people, so having decisions made at the MOTU meeting is a good thing, I think. I've added a note about answering to the TB to the charter. Thanks, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
