On 05-08-2011 11:33:52 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > A smaller committee for a chief technical officer fits better into a
> >  normal corporate structure. A smaller council could form special 
> > interest groups to address individual problems so nothing would be
> > lost from the reduced numbers.
> > 
> FWIW, I support Donnie's idea. I would like to see a smaller and more
> flexible Council which could assign tasks to interested parties. Right
> now, it takes 3-4 months (that is 3-4 meetings) for a Council to decide
> things and make substantial progress where other distributions are
> moving faster by having a single developer or a small group leading the
> project. In my point of view, we need to consider a fundamental change
> to our organizational structure. Roy's ideas are very interesting,
> however we need to decide on an abstract design before we dig into the
> details.

You really don't think the effectiveness of Council meetings should be
improved, instead of just reducing the number of members and
responsibilties, such that just one person is responsible for a
decision?

I am against the idea of having single people being able to easily make
(possibly totally unfunded) decisions that affect Gentoo full project
wide.

On the one hand, I think too many issues are brought to the Council
because people want to be put in their rights, or because they don't
feel like digging out the details to make the right decision.

On the other hand, Council members should discuss much more on lists,
prior to meetings, ultimately resolving/deciding issues already before
any meeting takes place.  I see no direct need for centralised meetings
at all to discuss on many topics.  Voting could happen on a ML as good
as on IRC.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level