On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:39 -0400, john palmieri wrote:
I appreciate that we are talking about the technical board as an open
question but I fear it could be used as a political tool to override
the decision making process that already exists in the meritocracy.
By giving a board this power
Thanks for the responses, Ryan.
Ryan Lortie wrote:
[removing foundation-announce from the cc:]
hi Allan,
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:59 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
* Do you have any concrete ideas of what 'strong and coordinated
technical leadership' would involve? It sounds very nice and
Le dimanche 22 mai 2011 à 20:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
name: Ryan Lortie
nick: desrt
affiliation: Codethink Limited
I am announcing my intention to run as a candidate in the upcoming
election for the board of directors.
[snip]
Isn't your candidacy just a attempt
It is wise to leave most technical decisions to the people who will do
the technical work, but this is not a rule, just a good default.
These people will generally try to decide based on the practical
usefulness and popularity of the one project they are working on.
For most questions, that's the
Hi Ryan,
Ryan Lortie wrote:
name: Ryan Lortie
nick: desrt
affiliation: Codethink Limited
I am announcing my intention to run as a candidate in the upcoming
election for the board of directors.
(( me ))
I've been around the GNOME project for a bit more than half
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:59 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
snip
That said, some questions:
* Do you have any concrete ideas of what 'strong and coordinated
technical leadership' would involve? It sounds very nice and all, but
I'd like to hear some specifics before I cast my vote. ;)
* If you
[removing foundation-announce from the cc:]
hi Allan,
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:59 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
* Do you have any concrete ideas of what 'strong and coordinated
technical leadership' would involve? It sounds very nice and all, but
I'd like to hear some specifics before I cast my
hi Philip,
(keeping in mind that creating a technical board is very much an open
question)
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 19:48 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
- Will all foundation members get a single vote?
That was indeed my intention.
I think your other proposals are too difficult to implement and
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:59 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
* Do you have any concrete ideas of what 'strong and coordinated
technical leadership' would involve? It sounds very nice and all, but
I'd like to hear some specifics before I cast my
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 13:51 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Philip,
(keeping in mind that creating a technical board is very much an open
question)
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 19:48 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
- Will all foundation members get a single vote?
That was indeed my intention.
I appreciate that we are talking about the technical board as an open
question but I fear it could be used as a political tool to override
the decision making process that already exists in the meritocracy.
By giving a board this power you basically allow people who may not
even be active in
Hi Ryan,
On Mon 23 May 2011 02:00, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca writes:
For a while the foundation board has largely taken a hands-off approach
when it comes to technical decisions. In my opinion this has allowed a
number of problems to develop.
Can you mention some examples?
I believe,
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for your answers. They were thoughtful, as you are.
On Mon 23 May 2011 22:38, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca writes:
More generally, though, during the last cycle I've heard a lot of talk
from many different people about many decisions that seemed to be made
in an opaque way.
13 matches
Mail list logo
