> DeRobertis : Collaboration shall be defined as handling the mailing
> lists, web site, and other informational and discussion resources.
>
> Alain : Everything above except for the mailing lists, for a while
> anyway.
Adrian: We should include the mailing lists in the description,
however the President doesn't have to do everything. Tasks like
overseeing the mailing list can be handed off to others, and as long
as everything flows smoothly, the President shouldn't have to worry
about it at all. Perhaps if a new feature or standard was to be
added to the mailing list, the President might have to give the final
okay for that though.
> Alain : Do you wish to lead both the Programming and the UI, DeRobertis
> ?
Adrian: Probably best if one person has one leadership position,
however two nominations is appropriate. If they are voted into both
positions perhaps we ask them to select one and the person with
the second highest number of votes gets the other.
> DeRobertis : A person may vote "Other" and optionally fill in a name.
> In the event of an anonymous other winning, we've got a problem.
>
> Alain : An "Anonymous Other" is kind of like a vote of non-confidence,
> isn't it? In the spirit of a true democracy, I suppose we could allow
> for this possibility, to allow non-leading members to express their
> displeasure, if such a situation ever arises.
Adrian: Good point, I will make sure the CGI is capable of dealing
with this.
> Alain : This is the type of thing we had begun discussing in the UFP -
> you know, the thread we called "Constitution". Who votes ? When do we
> call a vote ? Who decides the issue that will be voted upon ? How do
> we decide how and when to expel a troublesome member ? Will there be a
> peer-review process of the leaders ? And so on. Overall, voting is not
> necessarily the most fruitful approach to decision-taking. I prefer to
> arrive at decisions by consensus. In this regard, I feel that it may be
> premature to vote before discussing all of the above issues. It is even
> conceivable that voting itself will be dismissed. This said, I am not
> against a quick leadership vote to quickstart things.
Adrian: I think we need to stick to voting as a means of making
decisions. It is taking so long for us to decide anything and people
aren't sure if a consensus has been reached or not. This ambiguity
needs to be removed so that work can go ahead uninhibited.
Remember that if the groups get large reaching a consensus may
become impossible.
