[Dev] [donations] [due 2015-04-20] draft of agreement with ceata

[André Silva]

On 04/15/2015 02:34 PM, hellekin wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 01:31 PM, Icarious wrote:
>>> In my opinion, i think we could have a "vice delegate" for specific
>>> cases if the main one isn't available, also she/he could be the next
>>> successor and that period could learn about all related to the main
>>> delegate functionality.
> 
>> +1. That sounds good. Specially the "learning the role" part
> 
> *** Agreed.  However, like backups, you would need two in different
> places.  More seriously, I think we should keep the contract between
> Ceata and *one* delegate.  How the community handles the delegate,
> vice-delegate, backup vice-delegate, etc. should be a problem of the
> community, not Ceata.
> 
I agree about it too, the vice-delegate (or another similar name) should
be a non-official role inside Parabola, so we are keeping the contract
between Ceata and Parabola delegate only, but we could have this one as
"supply delegate" for emergency cases (if the delegate is silly, in
comma, etc.) and for "learning the role" to be the next delegate successor.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20150415/258bf414/attachment.sig>