I think "leader", with Anthony being the leader of course, is a nice decision style. Simple and effective. Anthony would of course listen to everyone's opinions first, when necessary...
Leader + committee with veto is good too. One concern here would be to decide who is part of the committee. Everyone on the discussion list? I think that is too vague. Perhaps we should set up some rules for joining the committee or so. Also how do the committee use it's veto power? The majority needs to be in favor of a veto? Probably good. Very important to know how many are part of the committee for that to work, though... or we could require only the majority of the votes to be in favor of a veto for the veto to take effect. It would be a bit easier to let Anthony be our very own metalink dictator =) Take a look at this, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life Works for Python, Ubuntu and OpenBSD, among other projects. If we put together a committee with some voting rules and everything, then that would be very nice too. I think we need to know who is part of it and how it makes decisions, for it to work well, though. Hampus Anthony Bryan wrote: > thanks for the input! that may be the way to go. I would still like to > hear as many other people's opinions as possible. > > SFC said example decisions would be how to disburse money, such as > paying for someone to attend a conference. I think we would've only > had to make a couple decisions like this in the history of our > project, so it's not like we'd be bogged down in committees :) > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 9:03 AM, bmm<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think a the second is probably best: leader and committee with veto >> power. >> >> It think the community is so small that it's not really necessary do >> everything through a committee. I personally don't think that I'm much >> of a decision maker when it comes to metalinks, I enjoy development to >> much. I think having a leader at this point would make the decisions >> more focussed and it should send a clearer picture to the outside >> world. >> >> So, my vote is for the second. (We are doing this in committee style >> now, right? ;) ) >> >> Bram >> >> On Aug 13, 7:04 pm, Ant Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 6, 1:42 am, Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> the SFC is an umbrella non-profit org, & Metalink joining would give >>>> us the benefits of being a non-profit w/o most of the administrative >>>> hassles. >>>> >>>> about 20 other projects like Boost, Inkscape, jQuery, Mercurial, >>>> Samba, Sugar Labs, & Wine are members. >>>> >>>> http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/overview/ >>>> >>> it looks like the next step is to codify our decision making style. >>> >>> there are a number of choices, but I think one of these 3 fits how >>> we've been operating or might wish to operate in the future >>> >>> leader >>> leader and committee with veto power >>> committee >>> >>> the last 2 are probably the best fit, but I wanted to see what other >>> people think. it sounds like there would be few decisions to make a >>> year, so it's not too much work that's required of the committee. >>> >>> -- >>> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [http://www.metalinker.org] >>> )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads >>> >>> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
