Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:00:56 +0200
Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excerpt from the metastructure model, chosen by the majority of devs
last year (and not my model):
[...]
* It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the
members of the project. This selection must occur at least once every
12 months, and may occur at any time.
[...]
While we're on the subject of the metastructure model, could we
consider changing this rule? It's a little strict, and I suspect it's
honoured more in the breach than otherwise (by which I mean some,
perhaps many, projects don't bother to hold a selection process every 12
months). The 12 month rule makes perfect sense for the council and
foundation trustees but it's over the top as a rule for all
projects.
I would suggest something along the lines of, selection of
leadership of a project can occur at any time, but can be forced should
a majority of the team feel a new selection is necessary, perhaps
with a rider allowing projects to setup stricter rules if they feel the
need. I'm assuming (since I haven't checked) that project membership
requires agreement of the project (i.e. people can't just join a
project without the existing project members' agreement).
The idea being that if the current leadership want to step down they
can do so and selection occurs within the project by default. At the
other extreme, if a lead becomes a pita for everyone else on the
project, the rest of the project can oust the lead by majority
decision (hopefully a rare occurrence).
One nice thing about the 12-month model is that it's harder to get on
bad terms with a lead that you'd rather wasn't the lead anymore. It's
less of a feeling of conspiring to oust them and more of a feeling of
Well, they didn't win the election this time around.
However, it's easy to avoid the election if nobody else accepts a
nomination, as happened in the desktop project. That saves all the hassle.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
