We need to clarify the IT roles, and entrust our IT people.

1/ Just to be accurate : we agree on the fact there is more people involved with IT.
As I said : "The main difference [between IT and Financials] is the amount of people involved with the IT, and the wider range of issues IT has to deal with".

2/ "I'm afraid that we will get stuck if we need the AG's approval for every IT guy that we want to enrol"
Yep !
Then I don't really get what you expect to come by having this topic on the next GA

3/ Responsabilities / Mandate / Trust
It's linked. People behind Financial are legaly involved the same way Infra is involved. At a certain moment, we need their name on the papers banks or providers give us. These responsibilities involve mandate, wich involves a legal structure.
But we don't have it.
Then what do we have ? Trust.
People we trust have their hands, and an access, on our sensitive stuffs (registrar, hosts, servers).
That means that in the end, it's just a bunch of people having trust on each others who actually rule the IT.

In short : we don't have what we need to talk about responsibilities or mandate, BUT we already have people we trust in charge.

The best thing we can do, in my POV, is indeed to empower the team in charge, not to question their work or how we trust them.

4/ "beside I don't understand you"
so yes, I totally agree on the empowerment thing, but no I don't think it's a topic for the Assembly

Ok, so we agree on the same things as I can see :)

The title actually tells what I expect by putting this topic on the GA (that's why I didn't agree on the original one): we do need to entrust the IT team, and we do need to confirm that this is the way we want to continue the work. Also, this team seems to work quite well for the moment, but I don't know how it will look on the long run. I'm afraid that at the end, every pirate will get access to at least one service. For instance, I discovered that Alexis was an admin of the website (well, it doesn't matter since it's flawed anyway). I think that it's important to have a public list of pirates who have access to which service. We started the work on the wiki with the ITNow page, I think that's a great step forward, and I don't think I could say how much this helps.
So yes, I think we need a kind of protocol for enrolling in the IT team, and a set of rules (call them as you want) that would ensure the privacy of pirates, but also a certain transparency on this matter.

Moreover, I can easily imagine that we could use the GA for calling for new members. What are the skills needed ? I doubt that we have a sysadmin, for instance. Wouldn't it be great if we could find one after this GA ? :)

I agree with your concerns, but I'm still conviced the GA won't help on any IT topics for now.

@tierce Could you be a bit more explicit, please ? By this, do you want to say that privacy and transparency are incompatible ? But I wasn't talking about the same people ! I am talking about privacy of members and transparency of the IT team.
Maybe you meant something completely different, but that's very difficult to understand such messages.

I was right ... this will be funny :smiley:

Let's just introduce the volunteers to all pirates, show the work done and ask for a 1 year mandate including the right to form a juridical personality for the hosting and domain names.

If you allow me:
- we know now by experience how bad votes can go on GAs.
- here, given the situation (there is a team that works) we don't need anything to be agreed upon by the GA, as such. IT team can organise itself the way it wants (check the statutes anyway if you mind the statutes).
- what we actually need : pirates need to be informed about the essential things happening. A GA is the best platform to say "hey pirates, now you all know about that, even those who are not on facebook or trello or telegram or whatever ç%ç% tool or small group of people".
- if you don't agree with how things are going, well, come join the team and help it along to improve if you are so smart (welcome to the real life). But no blocking allowed here - unless the whole room does, of course...

--> so in my point of view : no voting, consensus or whatever endorsement. Just (1) reporting on how IT is working (it's working!) and (2) what it plans to do next. And (3) open door to volunteers.

I agree with Valérie.

For me a single presentation of what has been done and eventually what's next (if defined) will do the job.

You made me think twice about all this. I totally agree that voting is the worst solution on a GA, and electing an IT team might create more issues than it would solve.

So for this GA, as Valérie suggested, let's just make a presentation of what've been done, what's in progress, what are our objectives for the next GA (or the near future, as you want) and then make a call to volunteers.
Maybe we could make a short history of the team management, since it wasn't easy to coordinate and find proper communication channels at the beginning. I mean, not just presenting the good points, but also talking of what went wrong and what mistakes should be avoided if possible.

Now, the question being who would like to present this ?

Also, I keep my concerns, I'm just hoping this team will keep improving as it is the case since it's creation :)

I have to make a review of the different tools we use, it will partially cover the IT topic(s).

For the "what's next" point : I'm wondering... what's next exactly ? :)

I mean : I don't think every IT people can answer that.
It may be a good reason to have an IT meeting before the GA (can be online), at least to be sure we are all on the same page