Jim Wilcoxson wrote:
For myself, if rather short term limits are put on the members anyway, I'd be satisfied with listing certain criteria to be a team member, and letting any individual meeting those criteria participate on the core team. If there are too many nominees, pick out of a hat. The assumption going in is that they are all qualified. I don't think there will be tons of people fighting over this job because of the time required.
I doubt any of the current nominees would participate in development less than they currently do if they are not voted onto the core team. I also think that the choice isn't that critical, because just the fact that three members of the core (that is half the members, right) will be from outside AOL, and will give the community more insight and access to the whole process. It also isn't that critical, because everyone nominated is well qualified. If the tcl core mode of operation is used, it looks like a disruptive member could be replaced with a 2/3 vote of the remaining members; so if a bad choice is made, someone can be replaced fairly easily. However if someone is doing a great job, as agreed by the other core members, why should they be replaced? Nothing precludes other community members from being very involved in the development process. At least the other AOL core members should be given a vote on who will serve with them. It might also be nice to use cumulative voting. Since there are three positions, everyone should get three votes. You can vote for three nominees, or if you feel strongly, place all you votes for one nominee. --Tom Jackson
