| 26 Nov 2024 |
 @nemnix:matrix.org | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
@nemnix:matrix.org: The Foundation is currently Ron Efroni. There was some work last year put into the trademark topic. If he is busy or unavailable, the Steerring Committee should be able to help you as well. Feel free to message us if you want to discuss this. Should I send an email, or can we discuss privately on Matrix? | 16:06:00 |
| 27 Nov 2024 |
|  @sky1e:mildlyfunctional.gay left the room. | 03:14:34 |
| 29 Nov 2024 |
|  deniel22 left the room. | 10:18:34 |
| deniel22 joined the room. | 10:20:19 |
|  lassulus changed their profile picture. | 18:29:58 |
| 1 Dec 2024 |
|  @shawn8901:matrix.org left the room. | 00:08:02 |
|  @tanvir:hackliberty.org removed their profile picture. | 17:38:09 |
| @tanvir:hackliberty.org removed their display name 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒗𝒊𝒓. | 17:40:50 |
| @tanvir:hackliberty.org left the room. | 17:43:10 |
| 2 Dec 2024 |
|  Shelby Lynn joined the room. | 00:48:12 |
| 5 Dec 2024 |
|  Danny Gerhardt joined the room. | 09:57:45 |
|  @nollie:matrix.org removed their display name nollie. | 20:38:26 |
| @nollie:matrix.org left the room. | 20:38:52 |
| 11 Dec 2024 |
|  Tomodachi94 (they/them) joined the room. | 02:54:59 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | I had a question about "Creation and Management of Teams". Specifically, RFC 0146 reads that "it is strongly recommended the creation of a team entrusted with authority to manage issues related to categorization and carry their corresponding duties". | 03:09:30 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | The constitution reads:
The SC[...] has the following responsibilities:
...
Creation and Management of Teams:
* Establish and manage teams to delegate authority on specific areas
* Delegate authority to long-term teams and committees , allowing them to evolve policies as needed
Was creating the categorization team in correspondence with the RFC but presumably without SC approval constitutional? | 03:12:37 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | (Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question) | 03:15:23 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | The constitution reads:
The SC[...] has the following responsibilities:
...
Creation and Management of Teams:
* Establish and manage teams to delegate authority on specific areas
* Delegate authority to long-term teams and committees , allowing them to evolve policies as needed
...
Was creating the categorization team in correspondence with the RFC but presumably without SC approval constitutional? | 03:21:07 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Am I also correct in assuming that internal team policies (the big thing is obtaining consensus on categories) would also need to be approved by the SC? | 03:28:53 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * Am I also correct in assuming that internal team policies (the big thing is obtaining consensus on which categories to create/remove) would also need to be approved by the SC? | 03:29:11 |
 hexa | I would be surprised if the SC was interested in micromanaging this team | 03:30:35 |
| hexa | Hey! Any progress on this topic? | 03:31:43 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | In reply to@hexa:lossy.network
I would be surprised if the SC was interested in micromanaging this team I agree. I'm mostly bringing this up to establish precedent about the scope of the RFC process (as a practical example, instead of a theoretical) | 03:32:10 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * I agree. I'm mostly bringing this up to establish precedent about the scope of the RFC process (as a practical example, instead of a theoretical) in relation to the SC and Constitution | 03:32:21 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * I agree. I'm mostly bringing this up to establish precedent about the scope of the RFC process (as a practical example, instead of a theoretical example) in relation to the SC and Constitution | 03:34:22 |
 Winter | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
Hey! Any progress on this topic? i just brought it up internally, hopefully will have an answer soon, thanks for the reminder | 04:31:19 |
 tomberek | I wouldn't mind having one. Though it seems de-facto this channel is serving a similar purpose. | 04:59:42 |
|  pyrotelekinetic (she/her) joined the room. | 06:23:24 |
 danielle | In reply to @tomodachi94:matrix.org
I agree. I'm mostly bringing this up to establish precedent about the scope of the RFC process (as a practical example, instead of a theoretical example) in relation to the SC and Constitution FWIW the intention (as an author of said doc) is that teams with authority should also have the SC as approvers of the teams charter. Not as micromanagement - but as "making sure that people are actually well equipped to do the thing they want to do, and that it is in line with the rest of the constitution and policies", then staying out of the way.
| 12:50:55 |
| danielle | but for stuff that was in flight prior to this kicking off.... shrug... that's a thing the SC should probably reconcile over time | 12:51:57 |
