On 2 April 2013 22:18, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism > to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision. > It is not my intention to sacrifice some egalitarianism. My intention is to allow those who have signed up to mentor projects to get on with mentoring them without the well-meaning interference of a large body of ill-informed bystanders (with respect to individual projects needs). This involves both decision-making and supervision. In this regard I believe my proposal is similar in intent to Chris M's. However, unlike Chris I don't see the IPMC failing in this regard. Usually it does a great job. Where my proposal differs from Chris' is in the oversight role of the IPMC. I see oversight as the vital function of the collective IPMC, it is the ability to identify when mentors and their podlings need additional support as they progress towards graduation. When mentors are doing fine this part of the IPMC role is just a case of signing off the board report. It's when something needs adjusting that the IPMC becomes inefficient. It is this aspect that I am seeking improvement for. BUT... Maybe these situations are rare enough to not worry too much about it and rather than change the structure of the IPMC we simply look to thrash out the odd issue that arises, one at a time. For the record I am pleased that you pushed for a change in voting rules driven by a consensus issue. Maybe we just need more of that on the odd occasionally becomes necessary. Ross > > >
