ubuntu-eg-council team mailing list archive

[Ahmed Shams <ashams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 19 February 2012 16:02, Jonathan N. Hindi <jonathan.hindi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> We need to discuss it, In a meeting not in the mailing list, What do you
> think?
>

Yes, please.

On 19 February 2012 16:22, Ahmed Toulan <thelinuxer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> IMO no need to be picky about naming,
>

Just trying to find the best, changing before launching will be easier, but
yes we don't need to be that picky, sure.


>
>

>> I just have a package of proposals,
>> * Changing council name to 'Meta' or 'Alpha' Team, coz it looks to be
>> ezagregated that such a tiny team has a "Council" :) right?
>> also, we are (or will) facing some over estimation, I mean council can be
>> a given a 'fake' glory, as a proof see Anas' last msg, you know what I mean.
>>
>
>
>  Tunisian team also has a council.
>

Dude, I'm just talking about what to avoid, not denying the whole thing. We
need the functionality of the council but I'm afraid that if we weren't
very sensitive to that it can result into separating community into two
layers and this is bad coz it'll show that the sphere outside the council
is no more than an addon, got me?


>
>  * Add an FG to work on Graphics work for the team, we have many good
>> hands in here.
>>
>>
> Add ? Wasn't it on the list ?
>
Unfortunately dropped!!


>
> Membership is for voting rights and nominations whether we will be having
> an open FG model or not.
>
 If we won't have membership then no need for the council to be elected at
> all. Choosing a group of active people in the group will suffice.
>
> So yes we should discuss this separately.
>

In a physical meeting, man, ML discussion wastes a lot of time.


>
>
> About meetings: I think we should continue meeting every Friday till the
> transitional period is over. Since we have a lot to do and almost nothing
> is finished.
>

Yes, I totally agree.


> I think we should discuss more stuff on the mailing list to save the
> meetings for decisions...
>

>
What about the opposite? ML discussions is a time waste and not all ppl
feel comfortable with it and we need all voices, plus We had enough of MLs
and almost reached a tie of discussion, so we need to brainstorm, IMHO.
So, can we discuss in physical meeting then, if needed, we can postpone
voting to ML discussion?

ppl, do you agree on physical meeting or let's continue on ML?