My proposal for voing and such

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 00:23:48 -0500
Randall Berry <randyn3lrx at gmail.com> wrote:
>  For what it's worth, I'm opposed to this. There are other non ops
> (including myself) who make an effort to contribute to the sig as
> well. Anyone who is a regular attendee of the weekly meetings should
> also have the right to vote.

Well, there are some folks involved that can't make our meetings, but
are otherwise very involved. Also, conversely, we have had people at
our meetings that are just disruptive and not intending to improve
things. 

>  There are a few non-ops who make an effort to be present at each
> meeting even though under the current mindset of the sig they have no
> say. Those that make an effort should be rewarded, give them a vote
> too, listen to what they have to say and consider their input.

Well, my proposal was that we always seek consensus first. Only in
cases where we cannot or where it's adding/removing an op/channel do we
vote. 

>  There are some ops whom I have never seen attend a single weekly
> meeting or haven't attended one for a very long time and some are
> seldom even seen active in the channel yet their op status is carved
> into stone somewhere.

Under this proposal, folks who feel inactive people should be removed
have a method for doing so. 

I will add that I'm not sure where the inactive issue is so hot. have
we ever had an old inactive op we haven't seen for years swoop in and
mess us all up? 

>  This should be an open nomination process (including self). Otherwise
> it may be (and rightfully so) seen as a 'clique' open to only those
> who get nominated in and voted on by the clique. All active members
> of the channel should be given the opportunity to serve if they are
> willing to do so as long as they are willing to abide by the channel
> rules and conduct themselves within the best interest of Fedora.

Absoletely. 

>  As it stands now only the ones who stand out of the crowd can be
> considered for ops. Then there are those that are active in the
> channel that are not Linux brains that can also serve.

agreed. 

>  As an example I am not as Linux smart as some of you but I still
> spend an awful lot of time in #fedora just observing. I'm a chronic
> insomniac so I'm awake most of the time. I have seen many times where
> the situation has gotten out of hand and there seems to be no ops
> around. I have given up quoting channel rules because most of the
> time I have been insulted in channel in several different languages
> for doing so with no authority to enforce the rule. Still in many
> incidences no ops took action for the personal attack or the foul
> language used whichever the case may be.

Then you may be a good candidate for ops to cover those late nights
where no one else is around, IMHO. (Note that in almost all cases of
foul language a warning has sufficed that I have seen).

>  On a side note to channel behavior. There are those in the channel
> whom should be quieted or removed but they are allowed to continue
> with their routine day after day even in the presence of ops while
> the present ops either support them or pretend not to notice.

Bring up those people/behavior so we can all figure out how to diffuse
them or remove them?

>  A long term ban/quiet should be used more liberally for repeat
> offenders. Instead it is not and they are allowed to return only to do
> the same things until an op takes notice and bans/quiets them again
> and again.

Sure, we are sometimes bad about escalating bans. Do let someone know
when you see this. 

>  I really do not see why any vote process should take 7 days. If you
> are present at the meeting(s) where an issue is being discussed you
> can cast a vote yay or nay. If you are not present then you have
> forfeited your vote. The vote goes to the majority of those present
> to either approve or disapprove the proposal.

Many people cannot make our meetings.
Also, some folks like to consider issues or people. Ie, if someone
comes to a meeting and says "Foo should be an op" they may want to talk
privately with Foo or look at their logs and see what Foo has done in
the past before casting a vote. 

>  I understand we deal with multiple timezones across the globe and if
> the meeting time is a problem for those overseas perhaps another time
> to hold the meetings should be chosen that is best for the majority.

Sure, we could, but I doubt we will hit 100% 

Thanks for the input! Do feel free to propose another setup that more
matches your ideas?

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/irc-support-sig/attachments/20120122/423e5116/attachment.sig>