Hi David, *, On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently > renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority > and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website.
I have to agree with the others that I don't like this way of handling the situation. I'm rather with Michael: Whose who do the work have the say anyway. > I want > to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my > decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. > Anything short of that, my decision wins. I'd rather prefer if that would not be needed in the first place - being the boss because one is the person who does the work gives me a better feeling than "I'm the boss because that's written on my nametag" > This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and > ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. Well - in that case I even more have to say -1 If you're the only one to think your plans are great (and in only this case you'd need to have "Boss"-powers), then I'd rather not follow that plan. If other people agree, then you're the boss because you're driving things forward. > I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org > website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it > gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as > the press. Regarding representing the TDF/the project to the press, others have responded already. > [...] > What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it > produces? I'd say now (but I'm no SC member) - the goals of the TDF are to drive community collaboration in the end, not "one party can do as they please". Experience, and actual contribution/work done should weigh more than a title. That is nothing wrong with giving you a title "Executive editor" - but the "I can veto whatever I want" part is what I don't agree with. I'm sure you wouldn't abuse that power, but is the message it signals to the outside, the principle behind it that doesn't please me. The community should be "ruled" based on rationale decisions, on discussions where people can provide input, etc (and that quality of the opinion/person behind it weighs more than just quantity of votes). Having a mini-dictatorship is OK for special cases, but is not a long-term situation. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
