Re: QAC another take

[Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj <aalarfaj at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:13:42 -0800 (PST), Nadim Shaikli
<shaikli at yahoo dot com> [...]
> We'll do whatever is needed to get you guys going (within reason) - but
> I highly recommend you stick to simple actions/procedures.  You don't
> want to complicate things by creating voting websites and such.  Put
> in a rule in place by which 3/4 (or similar) of the QAC has to agree
> on a term and move on - do the vote during your weekly meetings and
> proceed that way.  Its much easier, more personable (and this topic
> needs a bit of a human-touch) and its much quicker and lends itself
> to progress.

Realtime discussion has been the death of QAC so far. I find it takes
on average 5 minutes of discussion to agree on a single term. Thats 12
terms an hour/meeting/week. Thats 48 terms a month, or around 600
terms a year, provided we don't miss any meetigs and we don't spend
time doing anything on QAC other than agreeing on terms. Meanwhile we
have around 3000 terms pending agreement. If we wait 5 years to finish
them all most of them will be obsolete by then.

I made the suggestion because we could use an unconventional approach.
We need something that can move at a CONSTANT speed, even if its slow.
I'm trying to hammer out the particulars of this new approach in my
head of how exactly the web-voting will be, and will plead the case at
the next Core meeting time permitting. Meanwhile any extra pointers
and suggestions are welcome.

[...]
> Just an opinion - so has a consensus been reached on QAC and how to
> proceed ?  Or should those interested setup a meeting to really nail
> things down on IRC ?

No consensus. Just suggestions so far. I suggested the QAC's size be
reduced to 3-4 members to make it more manageable. Currently, 5
original QAC members are still to be found within the confines of
Arabeyes.

[...]