On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:09:41PM -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:01 +0300, Nicu Buculei (OCAL) wrote:
Ted Gould wrote:
I think the only reasonable 'group' that we could define as having any authority would be the four people listed as founders. Now, I'm not saying that they (particularly me) have made better contributions than other folks on this list, but I'm looking for something that is agreeable.
This or the people listed as admins of the sourceforge.net project. Or better, combine the two groups to get an odd number of members.
That's fine with me. I imagine the lists would merge very quickly through the membership addition process either way :)
Sounds like a good starting point to me as well.
For the sake of discussion, I'm going to call this group the board.
From then on, I think we should keep things simple. A person can be added to the board by a vote of the board. Same with removal. I imagine there will be a few adds starting out, but then things will die down significantly.
I think is better to have a larger group voting for adding a new member.
The problem there is determining who is in that larger group. Groups like the GNOME Foundation have people doing a lot of work to manage membership. While I love the inclusiveness of the GNOME Foundation, I don't think we're ready for that level of bureaucracy.
Whatever approach is taken, I agree that minimizing bureaucracy is an important goal. We should keep it easy and simple.
I also like the idea of enforced term limits (1 year?) Like, multiple terms are okay, but no one can serve two terms in a row.
Bryce