In reply to grover's message about lack of board involvement, most of my argument has been said by Sander and Bruce but I want to point out about the "virtual meeting" that Adam requested on the 20th: It was posted on the 20th without a date but instead a fuzzy idea of sometime after Adam got out of church. At the time I was working Sundays from 10 to 3... Nevertheless when I returned home I replied. Not only that, within another 24 hours Sander had replied as well.
Also, the board is the *highest* authority in the project but it is not the only one. It exists to formalize and decide things which are disputed, not to run the whole project. I'm not saying that it is normal to have such a low amount of board activity, but I am saying that the board is not the only way to accomplish things. SharpOS has always been about community, and regardless of what happens it will remain that way. The lack of participation in the "virtual meeting" was probably due to scheduling conflicts (not surprising on a Sunday in a geologically dispersed project) and lack of general development activity. In case you haven't looked around, there are only 2-3 active developers and 3 active board members, which leaves a very small pool of potential participants in such a hastily established and focused meeting objective. And to the point of milestone 2, it was been defined well before we reached milestone 1. It is there on the wiki like everything else and I am frankly surprised that someone as interested in the welfare of the project as you are didn't look at the most important information provided on our website. OK, moving along to Grover's interesting mix of being interested enough in the project to attempt to unseat the board and replace it with.......... some people who have not come forward. When I posted the vote to add you to the board it was because I inferred that you were interested by the fact that you even posted your proposal (which, btw, was entirely not posted as a proposal but instead as some sort of decree which contained hasty time tables which had almost expired without any candidacy requests by the time I got around to replying). Sorry I made such a mistake, but I would also like to point out that there are no policies stopping us from voting to accept someone to the board without a candidacy request so I'm not sure where you are getting at with the "board doesn't follow it's own rules" thing. The fact is, Mike, that your proposal for board replacement was poorly crafted. You should've measured the desire of community members to contribute to the project via the board mechanisms. You should have worded your proposal as just that, a proposal. You should've set up your time tables to be relative and not absolute, as it is obvious that such a change would take a bit of time to organize. In your proposal, you should've recognized the eligibility of voting (and not inferred that anyone could vote (and in fact, by web poll would most probably mean multiple votes if anyone felt obliged to do so)). Also, you should've solidified your mechanisms for such an election, as we don't have any software that would allow us to operate such an event. You show some kind of paradoxical view of our project by saying both at the same time that the project is not important enough to have secure and well thought out election processes, yet important enough to replace the board entirely to improve progress. You seem to blame us for not having time for the project yet you claim not to have time yourself to do anything about it. Your press for change would have been more effective, and caused less debate, had you merely requested a seat on the board and started proposing changes. With that, know that these words are not meant as a personal attack or to start conflict, but are merely my replies to what clearly seems to be some sort of non-premeditated knee-jerk response to some of the problems which we face. If you really want to see progress made here, start by working with us and not against us. I'm glad to see that you have accepted the seat, and know that anything you might have to say or any proposals that you are apt to make are not going to annoy us, but will probably please us in the fact that we would finally have an active board member. That said, on contented points there will be debate, and it is unhealthy to suppress it leading only to misinformed decisions and general erosion of the project toward conflict. Have a good day and welcome to the board! -- fury long name: William Lahti handle :: fury freenode :: xfury blog :: http://xfurious.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
