[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jacobowitz) writes: > I also think it's an excellent idea. It gives a rotating source of > follow-through, instead of relying on one or two members of the > group who feel differently about the group's obligations to end up > doing the follow-through (or dropping it and feeling bad about it).
For what it's worth, we've tried rotating responsibilities in a couple of other ways before, without huge success. There was the attempt to rotate the position of chairman on a set schedule, then I tried to assign the set of then-open bugs against the TC to members using the 'owner' feature in the BTS to keep up with who was to look after what. Despite some initial positive noises, very little concrete action resulted. [shrug] Maybe this is a better recipe. FWIW, one of the tasks I set myself during Debconf in Edinburgh was to get all the then-open TC bugs closed through concrete actions. Since we had a quorum of committee members present and available for in-person discussion, it seemed like a good idea. And it went pretty well, actually. Likely to do something like that again this year if we have a quorum of TC members at Debconf again, and pending issues. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
