Scheduling townhall meetings on MC elections result

Board Discuss
#1

Hello,

as promised, the board would like organize a townhall session to answer questions from our members. Looking at the timezones that work for most people, I propose two sessions:

First session, for CEST timezone:
Wednesday, October 16, 2100 CEST - 1600 BRT - 1900 UTC - 0400 JST (on the next day)

Second session, for JST timezone:
Thursday, October 17, 2100 JST - 0900 BRT - 1200 UTC - 1400 CEST

Alternatively, the options are
Tuesday, October 22, 2100 CEST - 1600 BRT - 1900 UTC - 0400 JST (on the next day)
and
Wednesday, October 23, 2100 JST - 0900 BRT - 1200 UTC - 1400 CEST

Please let me know what works best for you, so we can schedule the meetings.

Thanks
Florian

#2

Hello,

so far I’ve received only two replies on people’s availability. I’ll wait for some further feedback before scheduling.

Obviously, as it’s already Wednesday, this week’s proposed timeslot will not work out. I also heard some are down with flu after the conference - get well soon!

Florian

#3

… AAAAAAAnd where?

#4

So, after I sent a reminder here and to tdf-internal, I received exactly one reply, which then totals to three replies. That’s quite little to make a reliable scheduling. It would really be helpful if people who want attend such a session give their availability. Planning something based on feedback from three people is hard…

I think we need to do another scheduling, probably via Nextcloud poll, but let’s see the feedback here first.

#5

Anyday, after 17H CEST.

#6

Like many TDF topics I simply try to organize my work stuff around it (if possible, e.g. tomorrow the proposed meeting would have not worked) and it works similar to board calls and other regular meetings.

Yeah, I guess this is the best solution if you want to have the most interested in the call (“step up and vote or be quite”).

#7

That’s why the board will offer two slots to discuss the topic, and why I ask for people’s availability. Having a call with three people participating does not seem to make so much sense, but without feedback from people what their availability is, it’s hard to come up with a good schedule.

#8

I was amazed by an E-mail that suggested we should do calendar / scheduling for a meeting on a public list with hundreds of subscribers; that seems an incredibly noisy way to do anything - as well as extremely expensive in human time to collate the results.

As regards not replying myself (apart from not wanting to bother people) - this is sufficiently important problem that whenever the meeting is I would be trying to move things to be able to turn up; I can re-assure you that there are a large number of people interested in understanding their disenfranchisement, as well as to get answers to the many un-answered questions asked on the list here. In general it would be preferable to have answers to the simple ones on the list prior to the meeting I think.

Can I encourage you to select some meeting poll software and pick some slots so that we can efficiently find a good time for this, soon.

Thanks!

1 Like
#9

I second the ‘this is important enough I’ll try hard to show up whenever it happens’. It’s perhaps safe to assume, that many of the people who’ve participated in the various discussion threads (and have many questions left unanswered) would want to join.

Best, Thorsten

2 Likes
#10

I currently find out the board’s availability during November, and then based on that will announce a date here.

1 Like
#11

Like others I will do my best to join if I’m not on a plane, on a stage, or in an external meeting.

Still if you can record and make it available to members (only?) that will be great.

#12

Hello,

based on the availability of the board members, I suggest the following two timeslots:

First session, for CET timezone:
Thursday, November 28, 2100 CET - 1700 BRT - 2000 UTC - 0500 JST (on the next day)

Second session, for JST timezone:
Friday, November 29, 2100 JST - 0900 BRT - 1200 UTC - 1300 CET

Florian

#13

Hello,

just to remind you about the two planned townhall meetings (see above). They will be held at the usual board room, https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

Florian

#14

To help the board to prepare the meeting, here some of the open questions:

  • claim of illegitimacy
    what is the basis for a claim of illegitimacy / disqualification of the elected member’s candidacy (as opposed to whether it is desirable or not) (found here);

  • power to disqualify a candidate retroactively
    what gives the BoD the power to disqualify a candidate retroactively, given clear rules exist for handling possible situations of CoI? (found here);

  • being transparent
    while working to be as transparent as possible with the community, as far as legally allowed, the board does not share either the legal statements received about the power to modify elections outcome, nor information about why it possibly can not share (see here);

  • the situation of the MC and audits
    there is no information yet, showing that according to the foundation’s rules, or the practice of the past years, there would be a situation of ‘judging in ones own case’ when a BoD member becomes a MC member afterwards (details here).

(Further more there are quite some other unanswered questions, e.g. about affiliation, accusations made, in the various topics, but these are not directly on the decision itself.)

Answers to open questions

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.