On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:25:46 +0100 Emmet Hikory <per...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: >>> Due to lack of time, Reinhard Tartler (siretart) has chosen to resign >>> as the MOTU Launchpad Liason. William Grant (wgrant) and Morten >>> Kjeldgaard (mok0) have stepped forward and will share these duties. ><<...>> > >>> Because of limited time, and also due to the lack of a satisfactory >>> solutions for conducting a proper poll among the MOTUs, William and >>> Morten have already -- on behalf of the MOTU -- given the LP developer >>> team feedback on the priorities of the MOTUs for the LP 3.0 >>> development cycle (see https://dev.launchpad.net/VersionThreeDotO/Soyuz/Inputs >>> column "T"). > >Scott Kitterman wrote: >> I appreciate the two of you stepping up to do this important task. ><...> > >> However good this list may be, it has no legitimate basis to be considered >> a "MOTU" input. >> >> Part of our process for role transfer includes a chance for community >> review of such delegations. Until this has happened (I guess we now have >> that chance), I don't see any legitimacy to speak on our behalf. > > > While I agree that the list of priorities does not include the >expected input to be truly considered to represent MOTU priorities, I >very much disagree that the process for role transfer is in any way related. > > More specifically, while we have a fairly detailed process by which >people join or leave some of our delegated teams (motu-sru, >motu-release), we have not historically used this process for transfer >of MOTU Leaders, including transfers since the adoption of this process >for the delegated roles. > > So, if there is a desire to have this process affect the singleton >MOTU Leaders as well as the delegated teams, this change should be >raised for review and discussion separately from the criticism of our >new LP liaisons' prioritisation choices.
I think that before anyone can claim to speak for the community, the community needs to buy into that in some manner. I view exactly how that is accomplished as an implementation detail. In the case the new liaisons spoke for the community at a time when we didn't even know they were the liaison. It's quite all right to describe their input as input from two MOTU who are generally knowlegable and having a good opinion, but there's no basis for them being treated as speaking for us without our consent or input. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
