Hello Olivier, Le Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:17:16 -0200, Olivier Hallot <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi > > Some thoughts and questions from my personal experience: > > 1) I am a bit concerned of the definition of project: It looks like > TDF will foster several software projects, which is fine for me, but > then (may be I am a bit biased by OOo structure), how do we manage > NLC, L10n, Marketing and other "projects"? Does "software > development" include all these activities? Well, indeed you think like we're still on the Collabnet infrastructure :-) . I think we would refer to teams for L10N, marketing, etc, not "projects". I was rather referring to different types of software when talking about software projects. > > 2) I really appreciate *oxygenation*. Letting a chairman "ad > aeternam" in place is a source of trouble and will let him build > strong and unbreakable ties with the BoD, the employees and selected > sectarian members of the Foundation (the "goodfellas"), aiming to > preserve his status and position and offering whatever is needed to > keep support on him. > > A one or two year term with one further nominaton will ensure fresh > air (sort of) to the TDF Chairmanship. The leaving chairman can be > reconducted later, but only after another one took his place for at > least xxx month. Let's put it that way: the Chairman is fireable at will, and is an employee of the foundation. Otherwise, I fear we're going to go back into byzantine considerations, that will end up being abused or impractical. > > Oxygenation also improves governance and transparency. yes it does: but the Chairman (or any other officer for that matter) is changeable at will by the BoD, so it's not an elected mandate. > > 3) About disputes: It seems that the disputes will be settled "inside > TDF" by the BoD, then the Chairman. Question: Is it advisable, for > the sake of transparency, to let the members decide as the upper > instance? What do you mean? that they can pick either one of them? > > 4) On conflict of interest, I personnaly prefer 20% figure instead of > 30%. So it would be two instead of three members. It's possible I think... any further thoughts? > > 5) Should any member of the Membership Committee (MC) have a "veto > power"? No. > > 5a) Oh, by the way, what is the decision process of the MC with > respect to the aplication? votes by simple majority, 2/3 members, 4/5? Simple majority or consensus (most of the information collected about an application should ideally be automated), but the MC is a committee formed by the BoD and I don't think we should go all the way explaining how the MC will work. I think several "versions" of the MC will have to be enabled before we reach the right balance. > > 6) How many members will take place in the MC and how are they > appointed, for how long, how often they meet? See above. > > Are we going to allow memebers of the BoD, AB, and the Chariman to be > in the MC? I don't see why we should forbid them this access, but I also think that the MC will have a certain amount of work that will be incompatible with the existing duties of these people. > > 7) "If a Member stops contributing, such that the merit criteria are > no longer met, membership status will be revoked after a certain > period of time. > > Does it means that a founding member of the TDF will be revoked if > he/she does not participate on a xxx period of time? Shall we give > them a "honorary membership" (dangerous). Honorary membership is indeed a dangerous path. But on the other hand, any member can regain its membership status after three months of continued contributions , so it's only a temporary and easily remediable issue in the scenario you're describing... Best, Charles. > > Regards, > > Em 29-11-2010 15:23, Charles-H. Schulz escreveu: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Here is the latest version of the bylaws: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws > > > > Latest change include mostly amended details on the Chairperson, as > > well as some more details on the BoD and a bit more clarity on > > salaries, expenses, etc. > > > > Since we've been discussing this for quite some time now, we would > > welcome your comments on this list until this week-end. If no strong > > veto is cast until then, we'll consider them to be adopted. > > > > David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks! > > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
