> As a quick cautionary warning, the guidelines of small group dynamics > a virtual setting (e.g. us, businesses who telecommute, etc) says that > group should be no larger than 10 people, otherwise long discussions > could drag out too long. We are already at eight with Chad and Matthijs > being included. Personally, having previously headed a large online > gaming group with a staff of 50+ to oversee a membership of 300-ish, > and > a core "senior staff board" of 14, discussions got out of hand often, > simply because of the sheer amount of text flying around in the IRC > room > or on the mailing list.
That's a good point - but if its borderline we might want to consider 11 or 12... not everyone shows up to all meetings. For voting on Indy we did it offline and all votes were allowed to go for x days. We also allowed explicit abstain votes. When the team got bigger, we had a core board (Admin) and another. There were voting hierarchies, ie the admin could override the others, etc. Im suggesting that this board we create is the admin - and if it gets really big we have two in a hieararchy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
