Narayan, The four people have been appointed by the SC. These people are not dictators, they are here to achieve a goal (designing the website and operating it). The reason we chose these 4 people is precisely because these were the people who had been working on the website since the beginning so yes it is meritocratic. The team of four people needs to be in agreement with each other indeed, and they have to be community enablers, not dictators.
If you feel the website is going against your judgement I would advise you to focus on other parts of the LibreOffice project or perhaps find other teams elsewhere outside it who would like to have a website done based on your opinion and wishes. Again, we're not going to restart the same thread. Thanks, -- charles.h.schulz Sent with Sparrow On jeudi 3 février 2011 at 08:53, Narayan Aras wrote: > > Hi David, > > > From: [email protected] > > > For the present, you need to take account of the fact that work on the > > website is currently being led by a four-person team: myself for > > content, Ivan and Christoph as regards design (CSS, graphics), and > > Christian. Therefore, these people have to be in agreement about the > > decisions on developing the site. > > Oh so you four guys are the LibreOffice website decision-makers? > > And the rest have to work as bidden, against their professional judgment? > > > Nice. And completely meritocratic too. > > > In turn, we implement the guidelines > > and decisions of the SC. The SC is the final owner of the site, in its > > role as custodian and federator of the community. > > > Therefore, no action or decisions are possible without consulting all > > of the above people, with the SC having final veto. > > > You can certainly approach the SC and request a change as regards the > > four-man team. For that, the best thing would be to come up with a > > document laying out your ideas, and then to request an agenda item > > before an SC meeting, so that the issue can be discussed and voted on > > at the following meeting. In that case, you should be there at the > > meeting, and I think you'd probably be asked to vocally present your > > case. > > Is it not for the leadership to lay down the vision and drive it? > Why have this "come with your idea and let me see if I like it" attitude? > We are not even following the website design principles. > The checklist proves how half-baked this project is. > > > But the SC will, in any case, always be the ultimate owner and > > decision-taker as regards the website. That's the way it is and, in my > > opinion, the way it should be. > > Is this autocratic or meritocratic? > > > Guys, it would be so much better if we could move on past these > > discussions about the raison d'être of the website team. > > So it appears you never endorsed the agenda for the conference call? > > > It would be > > so much easier to possibly achieve a good number of the things you > > want, if we could work together contructively as a team and committed > > members of the project, putting our support behind the project > > governance and making a positive net contribution to the project. > > How can we have governance when we have self-appointed leaders who don't want > to consult others > and a superpower with veto? > > -Narayan > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
