My intention is indeed for us to run a new Technical Board election come the
end of 4.2, with much better and more explicit communication about what will be
expected of the new members, and a larger candidate pool to pull from to
hopefully make that work.
I will be posting my actual proposed DE
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andrew Godwin wrote:
> At this point, it is my view that it is our job to govern with the people
> we have, and the time and energy they can provide, and that's my intention
> with these suggested changes.
>
If the problem in front of us is that the Technical Boa
I agree the Technical Board has not followed the letter of DEP 10, and I think
the things you have highlighted are all valid failings, but I want to focus on
- what should we do to remedy them?
Given the lack of candidates we already have, if we ditch the current Board and
try to elect a new on
I'm going to avoid trying to get too much into point-by-point
back-and-forth argument here, and try to present the larger picture.
The Technical Board has multiple active responsibilities under DEP 10.
Let's look at some of them:
1. Canvas for feature proposals once per feature release of Django.
I want to offer a perspective from outside the Django community.
> I also saw the relative lack of candidates for Board elections and
essentially thought "better burnt-out me than literally nobody".
I appreciate Andrew's honesty here. I have been a volunteer on our local
mountain rescue team fo
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, at 12:12 AM, James Bennett wrote:
>
> My first reaction to this is: if having a DEP that says the Technical Board
> is supposed to take the lead in gathering feature proposals didn't get them
> to do it, it doesn't feel like another DEP saying they're responsible for
> t
*Loosening eligibility is fine, though I agree it's going to be very
difficult to write down in an enforceable way -- the DEP 10 language and
process was intended primarily to prevent trolls and other bad-faith actors
from being able to run effectively for the Technical Board, and there's a
balance
Hi James,
On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 12:27:03 AM UTC+2 James Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:24 PM Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
>> Proposing features - this is already in DEP 10, so I more just want to
>> get that aspect of the Board actually going (and, as a side-effect, have
>> som
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:33 PM Andrew Godwin wrote:
> It has not. While I cannot speak for the other members of the Board, I got
> burnt out in 2019, and then the pandemic began, and so it has not really
> been something I've pushed for in the past three years (and I believe I was
> one of the d
> Has that not been occurring? Because if it hasn't, then we have a major
> problem, and I don't see how the current proposal would resolve it.
It has not. While I cannot speak for the other members of the Board, I got
burnt out in 2019, and then the pandemic began, and so it has not really been
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:24 PM Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Proposing features - this is already in DEP 10, so I more just want to get
> that aspect of the Board actually going (and, as a side-effect, have
> something to aid fundraising). I am talking with the current Board
> separately on an internal
These are some great points, James - let me try to tackle them roughly in order.
Proposing features - this is already in DEP 10, so I more just want to get that
aspect of the Board actually going (and, as a side-effect, have something to
aid fundraising). I am talking with the current Board sepa
Something I note here is that it's presenting a solution, but not clearly
(at least, from my reading) presenting the problem to be solved.
Is it a lack of people proposing features? If so, I'm not sure this helps
-- it would, to me, suggest that only members of the Technical
Board/Steering Council
13 matches
Mail list logo
