[Members] teams

jehan at zemarmot.net jehan at zemarmot.net
Tue Sep 6 19:47:13 UTC 2011


On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:28:54 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> A few weeks ago in the XSF Board meeting, we discussed the purpose of
> the "XSF teams". My feeling is that we set up the teams mostly to solve
> particular problems (well, and also to give most people something to do,
> or to make some people feel important because they could be the boss --
> not a good reason). At this point the communications team and the
> technical review team are not active. The infrastructure team is active
> but that's because we always need to make sure the servers and website
> and wiki and email lists are functioning properly. I do wonder about the
> value of formalizing volunteers into teams as described in Section 8.3
> of the bylaws:
> http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
> Specifically, people wonder if they need to be team members in order to
> help out with things like the website. I don't see a need for such a
> restriction. However, the bylaws state:
>    Participation in Teams shall be limited to elected Members of the
>    Corporation.
> The bylaws also state:
>    The specific nature of the Team’s responsibilities shall be defined
>    by a Team Charter, which must be approved by the Board. The Charter
>    shall also define the process by which Team members shall be chosen
>    or approved.
> I suggest that we remove the sentence about limiting participation to
> elected members of the XSF, and simply leave the process of selecting
> team members up to the charter for each team.

We can try and continue the "team" experience but if it continues to be
"no-activity teams" all along, I wonder what is the point. Maybe let's
have a look in 6 Months and see what will be the status then.

Also you said teams are to solve particular problems. But sometimes we
want to solve *very* particular ones. Like a website migration. Or an
event to handle. Or specific XEPs we want to review as a group. Etc. I
think the problem about Communication and Technical Review teams is that
they are not that particular. They are at the opposite very vague.
For instance the Technical Review Team has basically the role of
reviewing XEPs. That's what I do all the time, except that I don't want
to be given tasks or asked to review a XEP whose finality I don't really
care. Not that I *really don't want*. If I had the time to review all
XEPs, I'll do it gladly. But I don't even have time to review all the
XEPs I'd like to, so I can't be bothered by an additional structure to
put its weight on me. If at the opposite we had more "working groups",
dedicated to an actual specific issue and maybe more temporary and
flexible (without the need to be elected for instance which I think is
only a way to block skilled unknown people), I'd be more interested
because then I could choose what I am interested in.


More information about the Members mailing list