Bringing fdo.org to the next level

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 14:35 +0200, Waldo Bastian wrote:

[CUT]

> Yes, and then they all agree on something and make a powerpoint presentation 
> to tell everyone else and then the discussion will start from the start again 
> because everyone who wasn't involved finds flaws in the proposal, just 
> doesn't like it, doesn't understand the reasoning for decissions and think 
> it's all motivated by the hidden agenda of company BigFooBar.
 
What about letting these discussions happen first. And then let the
people of such a board make decisions based on what can be learned from
the discussions?

If a lot people disagree with the decision of the board, a new meeting
can be setup to make a new decision. Until it's proven that the board
members are incapable of producing a good proposal (and therefor should
be reelected) or until a consensus is reached.

In stead of letting the board decide on a certain issue first, and then
let discussions start. 

That way, I'm guessing it would be more predictable what the reasons for
declining the decisions of the board will be.


> Not to mention the inability of a project like KDE to agree on which person(s) 
> would be suitable to represent KDE, the unwilingness of those persons to 
> commit to such a board position and the months of discussion that that 
> process would take.

Humble.. I didn't know that. Given the fact that the team of KDE
developers produce high quality software, I honestly thought that such
things within the KDE community are well organised. 


ps. Persons who are unwilling to commit to such a board position,
shouldn't have been elected for it in the first place.


> So no, I don't think that's a good idea.

Ok :)



-- 
Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com
http://www.pvanhoof.be/