On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 07:23:55AM -0600, Rob Savoye wrote: > > Personally, I think such a committee, with well defined decision making > > process rules, would not only help dealing with the FSF but also make it > > easier to take decisions. > > As I mentioned before, you seem to want to apply this offer for fund > raising to establishing some kind of control over other facets of the > Gnash project.
Of course I want to estabilish some kind of control. Mostly quality control. Having invested a lot of effort in the project I care about it not getting ruined. If Gnash is a community project, why shouldn't community members have more control over it ? Or what does it mean to be a community project ? Note I'm not a simple user, but a top committer... http://www.ohloh.net/p/gnash/contributors > This is why I turned down the FSF on their offer, as it > would just lead to more infighting and flame wars as we'd fight over > allocating money. We never fought about money allocation so far, only about technical issues (which I'm more concerned about). > I'm personally a big believer in the benevolent dictator model of > project management, *not* the committee idea. These are interesting readings about governance models on OSS Watch: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel.xml http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticGovernanceModel.xml For each one there are also template governance documents which would help defining one for Gnash. I'm more for a meritocratic governance model. --strk; () Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer /\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
