On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Pasi Lallinaho <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand that a complete consensus (and pleasing everyone) might not be > something we can achieve with 3+ members (either), but it really gives me a > more community-based feeling. And in the end, I'm only proposing 4 members, > and there's not really a decent way of determining which team (leader) > should not be in the council. If you have an idea which team/who should NOT > be in the council, please point your finger on the team.
FWIW, size-wise, the standard 5 person council which includes a chair who can break ties[0] in votes has worked very well for other teams. It's still small enough to not be a bureaucratic hassle, but tends to give good representation of the community, healthy discussions with several viewpoints that hold official weight and doesn't put strain on the council time-wise - in a 5 person council, it's ok if two members are unavailable, quorum can still be met so decisions can be made and the project moved forward. Hope this helps. [0] when taking into account absences and people abstaining, a 5 member council can have ties. -- Elizabeth Krumbach // Lyz // pleia2 http://www.princessleia.com -- xubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
