Re: Draft proposal

["Chahine M. Hamila" <mch at chaham dot com>]

I am in agreement with almost everything now except the ones I'll comment
below

Mohammed Elzubeir a *crit :

> Salam,
>
> Before I comment on the proposal, I would like to get a general vote on
> the name 'Arabeyes'. Do we want 'Arabeyes' to be '3rabeyes' in Arabic or
> '3yun al3rab'? Either way, I don't like the alef there for Arabeyes when
> written in Arabic ;)

3yoon el 3arab seems fine to me.

>
> (8)-beh --> Again, this is there to resolve deadlocks and not to give
> one party more leverage than others. Although I prefer to steer away
> from beurucratice processes, perhaps if we have something like, after x
> amount of time, and/or x amount of re-votes the deadlock still cannot be
> resolved then the GC will have to make a parting vote.

No, bureaucracy, I have my life share of it. We can decide to negotiate it
in a "cooperative mode" by remaining flexible n all, but if things get
nasty or too much time and energy is being wasted, parting vote should be
used. So it should be there, since the first time, and the GC should be
able to use at will in any case of tie. Election will ensure that the GC
will only be someone who uses it wisely.

>
>
> (8)-jeem --> Not sure. One way I am torn between Nadim's take on it (I
> kind of agree) and at the same time, there needs to be some kind of
> supervisory role.. not so much 'supervisory', but... peer check-ups. If
> that can be put in place without making others feel inferior then I'm
> all for it. I don't care about the mechanics as long as it gets the job
> done.

yes, I agree 8j shouldn't be there.

12-dal: should be lowered, the principle being "Better be less and have a
stable team than have someone stay in imposed by a minority". Assume you
get 70% of votes for exclusion. That means you are keeping someone for the
will of 30% only of the team which is very nasty. Exclusion should be
simple majority. Again, "better be less and solidly stable than more and
messy".

>
>
> (13)-dal --> I am also agreeing w/ Nadim here (I'm assuming this is the
> same point in the previous message). It is probably better to be more
> flexible here, as well as make it based on the timeline a given 'project
> coordinator' has accepted him/herself.

Or make it on a case per case basis. I think we'd be able to judge when a
guy is being active or is just kidding Arabeyes, so we don't need to set it
in stone.

>
> Aside from the above, I think we have gone a long way since the original
> proposal. Dare I say, we are getting closer to an agreement [crossing
> fingers!]?

Aside from the members exclusions which for me are still a big issue,
everything is fine (as long as I'm not assigned one of the charter's
bureaucratic tasks;))

Salaam,
Chahine