We don't have to get the entire PMC policy framework complete by Saturday in order to assume the role of spokespeople and chat to Jos. Any actions/items of importance can be raised on the mailing list by way of meeting minutes (like how 100% of businesses around the world conduct meetings) for subsequent discussion until the official decision making process is agreed. On 24/06/2014 18:42, Alain Forget wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed- >> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pid Zero >> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 13:31 >> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Mumble voice chat with Jos at 3PM EST >> >> Nobody is going to compell you install a voice chat app if you have issues >> with >> it. But that doesn't exclude others from using them. It'll always be a game >> of >> catch up (with some missing the prime opportunity to chime in) on the basis >> that thanks to the 24hr nature of the project, there's always discussion >> happening. >> >> Even when the PMC is created. There's not going to be a situation in which >> only the people awake during the time when an issue is being discussed get to >> make a binding decision. The fact that none of those on the PMC-elect live in >> the same timeline prohibits it. So I wouldn't worry about being left behind. >> >> The mailing list is great for having wider discussions with the whole >> community. But it's not a great place for back & forth dialogue. At least not >> efficiently. As for transparency, the PMC is the only body capable of making >> project oriented decisions and it's discussions will be publicly available by >> design. >> >> <Replied from my mobile so please excuse the fat fingering & lack of PGP. I >> advise that any technical info in this email be subject to external scrutiny> >> -- >> At the time of writing, no warrants have been served to me, nor am I >> under any legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not >> know of any searches of seizures of my assets. >> >> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Stephen R Guglielmo <srguglielmo@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx >> <javascript:;> > wrote: >> > Hi. Jos would like to have a Mumble chat with any of us who are >> interested, >> > and is trying to decide when. >> >> I do want to politely voice my opposition to using these "voice chats" >> (Skype, Mumble, TeamSpeak) as a means of communication. >> >> I have a few personal issues with it, as well as issues for the >> project overall. My personal issues are just that, personal, so >> they're not too important. My busy schedule requires me to check my >> email at work or elsewhere quite often and voice chats would not be >> possible in those cases. I also do not own a microphone or webcam >> and >> have no interest in spending the money to purchase one. >> >> Some other issues I have that aren't so personal are the lack of >> logging and transparency in voice chats. We invite people to join us, >> yet we use methods which force them to install more software. There >> is >> no public logging/archive of voice chats either. Yes, they can be >> recorded and posted as an mp3 somewhere, but that is still not very >> practical. If a large decision is made during a voice call that >> someone missed, they can be very "out of the loop" and rather >> frustrated. I feel as though voice calls quickly eliminates the >> participation of a majority people who want to be involved (even if >> just observing). It involves software, often proprietary, to be >> installed on everyone's systems. It's yet another thing to setup. I >> already have 4 different passwords related directly to CipherShed >> (WP, >> forum, wiki, and GitHub). The number of "dependencies" just to stay >> involved is increasing. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> At the time of writing, no warrants have ever been served to me, nor am I >> under any personal legal compulsion concerning the >> CipherShed project. I do not know of any searches or seizures of my >> assets. > > I really think being ready by Saturday is really just not possible, between > the 72-hour rule and the number of important action items the PMC need to > deal with just to get organised, including: > > * private (?) mailing list > * voting mechanism > * decide on the PMC chair policy > * come to a clear/formal/explicit consensus on CipherShed's and the PMC's > mandate > * clearly/explicitly define the QA team's role > * elect QA team members > * figure out what needs to be prepped/organised for the influx of > contributors we're soon to have > * other stuff I/we haven't thought of, lost track of, or that we'll discover > along the way > > I'd love to hit the ground running and make super-fast progress, but there's > just no way I see all this getting done by Saturday, unless the PMC can > somehow have an über productive synchronised (e.g., Mumble/TeamSpeak) meeting. > > On the note of voice chat meetings, I agree with Stephen that they should be > avoided whenever possible, for the purposes of inclusion and transparency. > However, when there are a long list of items that we want to discuss, > address, and (hopefully) resolve in a short period of time, they can be a lot > faster and efficient than going back and forth over e-mail. However, that > speed and efficiency comes at the cost of some transparency and a risk of > leaving other out who couldn't make the call. It's a trade-off that I don't > have a good answer for. > > If the call with Jos is going to go-ahead, my schedule is relatively > flexible, so it's probably easier if you/others suggest times, and if one > doesn't work for me, I'll let you know. I'm fine with almost all of the times > Jos suggested. > > Alain > > -- -- At the time of writing, no warrants have been served to me, nor am I under any legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not know of any searches of seizures of my assets.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
