On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:09:46AM -0800, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > > I'll relook at the charter - but I dislike burocracy and endless > ever-evolving set of rules. I think a voting system in place solves Yes, but currently we don't have any rules. If you and I disappear tomorrow, Arabeyes is essentially gone. Without those rules, we simply cannot guarantee our claim of continuity. There is no clear process on how others can become 'core' members. We need to be more inclusive. This stagnation is evident by first the disappearance of Chahine and now with Isam's undecidedness on what position he wants to assume. Are we to wait until we have no 'core' and then do something about it? If all is said and done, I will personally see to the deployment of a voting system by which all committers can have a say on what goes and what doesn't (and who assumes what role and who doesn't as well). > almost all those issues. Problems arise when there is no communication > and no discussion and so you solve that you solve all issues. In > short, I'd say, > > 1. talk, meet, discuss > 2. everyone is equal weight (physically or otherwise :-) to everyone > else - no rank pulling. 1 person == 1 opinion There is no 'problem'. I think all of us currently in 'core' are pretty well in agreement with regard to the above. > > I would much rather not go down this road again since it doesn't > serve any legit purposes - we need to move forward and progress. We need to get this out of the way. Quickly and swiftly. > A couple of issues here to consider, > > 1. Why add another set of people (we continue to need an odd number > of core'ites). What is the impetus for it ? What is expected I don't see the problem with odd vs. even. It is ideal (probably) to have odd numbers (to negate certain parts of the charter). I can understand that, but from what I gathered from you (in the past) and I tend to agree -- it should be about qualified people, not numbers. > to happen ? What areas need to be covered ? Is there a limit/cap > to how many core'ites there should be ? Not at this point. I don't see why we should set a cap, but common sense dictates it remains proportional to the project size. > > 2. What if the commitment falters ? The charter clearly defines what happens then. > > 3. What should the core team do to bring better focus and more > urgancy to the process. I think we agreed to make meetings permanent on a weekly basis. This should revive the urgency. Just note that this time we want to do things in a rational way. I simply am interested in ensuring there is a clear and defined process for succession (and the rest is all 'extra'). later -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Mohammed Elzubeir | Visit us at: | | | http://www.arabeyes.org/ | | Arabeyes Project | Homepage: | | Unix the 'right' way | http://fakkir.net/~elzubeir/| ------------------------------------------------------- --- Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=elzubeir
Attachment:
pgp00010.pgp
Description: PGP signature