On wo, 2006-07-12 at 11:58 +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > As I understood Ganneffs mail (and in there an idea aba and I discussed > with stockholm back in .mx), that's what he is proposing: A team in a > team. > > Nota bene: It's the same you are proposing, just that he had four > members as main organisors (and called them coordinatiors).
I understand that is one possible interpretation of my words. As I said on IRC, we should define some roles to define a bit of structure. But explicitly leave the rest to be filled in as time roles by. My idea is to create some clarity by defining a bit of structure and keep being flexible by not defining the rest. > What I think, is that we need someone who is doing the task described as > "main organisor" above. I think it could work better, if it's a smaller > group (but I had three people in mind). I can also see how model that would work out, if these people are able to work together and keep eachother up to date constantly. > The important point is, that > their job is *not* to make decissions, but to coordinate, keep track of > timeline and deadlines. Spot on! > But I agree with holger here: We have time for that, and the future > structure of the orga team is such an important point, that we must not > be hasty about that. Indeed! A good soup isn't made in 5 minutes, but takes at least a day. Let's have the soup we are now preparing simmer for a while and see how the flavour needs to be adjusted so we all like it. -Aschwin _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
