Hi Sergei, Sergei Vyshenski wrote:
Afraid I can not. As this could upset several of the core, which is the point I would rather escape.Sorry.
This is part of an open discussion - I mean the conflict not the ... ;)
Nonetheless, having a board like in a private club or lodge may be superior and more predictable compared to democracy games.
Ok, if I interpret the discussion until here correctly then we need perhaps something like a three class system - board members, active developers and normal users. So we would have a democracy of peoples who are qualified by technical expertise. Does this be safe enough?
The following things must be discussed. So please take them as proposals: 1. Board members must/should be active developers.If we want that the active developers elect the board then we must define who are active developers.
2.1. A person is an active developer if he contributes code in the last 1/2/3 years which moved into the official source code revision system.
2.2. A person is an active developer if he contributes documentation in the last 1/2/3 years (perhaps we should define a volume here).
Please take this like usual as a first, fast and usually erroneous approach. So who has better definitions?
Michael -- _______________________________________________________________ Michael Bell Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30-2093 2482 ZE Computer- und Medienservice Fax: +49 (0)30-2093 2704 Unter den Linden 6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-10099 Berlin _______________________________________________________________
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
