| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 05:08:25PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'll have a wee nibble here. |
| 3 |
> Before the council, there were the irregular meetings of the Top Level |
| 4 |
> Project (TLP) leads. These meetings became so irregular, they |
| 5 |
> eventually to all intents and purposes, ceased. These meeting resolved |
| 6 |
> the cross project issues. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Council was formed on the same basis. Their terms of reference state |
| 9 |
> that they are to arbitrate on matters brought to them, which inferrs |
| 10 |
> that proactive leardship is not permitted. Maybe that needs to be |
| 11 |
> changed. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is a tough one. If the council does start to become more proactive, |
| 14 |
there would need to be a way to guard against the council stepping into |
| 15 |
a project and dictating how that project will do things without fully |
| 16 |
understanding the implications of their decision. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If the council is an arbitrator, it is up to the people involved to be |
| 19 |
sure they bring as much information as possible before the council so |
| 20 |
it can make an accurate decision. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
William |
Archives