HI,
Clarifications follow based upon Alain's Qs.
I wrote, in part....
>> ... if Eric says it is so.
>
> Alain: Eric has given us a big hand with legal stuff,
> and he is currently working on the graphical aspects
> of the FreeCard GUI, but what does all of this have to
> do with programming-from-scratch?
Different Eric. The Eric you mention is the guy you talk about. I'm talking
of Eric, the bloke who wrote the paper about the original Bazaar model. He
is sorta a guru in open-code projects and one of its (our) culture
navigators. Sorry to confuse the liked-named guys in the discussion.
----------
I wrote:
>> Rather, let's pull it off, but let's try to throw
>> out enough raw meat to the wolves as soon as we can
>> -- and then we won't be staying where we started.
>> We won't be starting from scratch as soon as we
>> provide new arrivals with something to scratch.
>
> Alain: Are you suggesting that we rush to code and/or
> rush into a formal partnership, so that we can
> demonstrate to the outside world, and to ourselves,
> that we are really doing something?
"RUSH" is sorta too negative. Progress is called for. And, valued work
assignments would be nice so newcomers can share the load in meaningful
ways. (hint: FAQ-Clerk(s), MacPerl investigation and summary, etc.) We DO
need to make some valued headway. If we spin our wheels too long, we'll blow
the opportunity of the moments, and we'll grow in frustration. Rather, let's
engage, proceed, gather our resources and information organizations.
-------
I wrote,
>> ... Now, I'm seeing some big
>> upsides to progress if we have an organization that
>> has some real people at its helm.
>
> Alain: Are you suggesting that it is sufficient to
> have our organization officially consecrated with
> readily identifiable figureheads to insure our
> success? Or are you suggesting that we also delegate
> decision-making powers to these leaders?
Short answer: the former.
I'm of the opinion that we DO need some (say 12 or so) figure heads. That
official consecration thing sounds about right, IMHO. It can be a "pledge"
-- a humble oath -- a sworn promise to be a voice of reason here and
elsewhere. This goes to the bigger question of "what it means to be a
partner." And this goes to being a partner for WHAT exact organization.
As for the decision-making powers, I'm very set on getting the scope of the
organization set before its birth. The scope of the ORAGINAZATION
(foundation) should be crafted for importance, but in a super-specialized
way. Once that is all done, the foundation set, so to speak, then I just
don't see much need for partner/director/bishops to cast many votes that
exclude the rank-and-file.
Once we are running, I'm more for majority rule -- for the greater
community. I'm not an elitist. I'd like the policy and directions to be set
by those who care enough to vote. But, we'd have to stay within the realm of
our being.
-----
As for the idea of being a partner and NOT being a partner -- we all agree
that it (the organization) needs to be "safe."
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
