1 |
Daniel Robbins wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> If you have any suggestions for improvement or for coordinator/project lead |
4 |
> structure, try to see if you can suggest it so that it can work in the |
5 |
> context of what I've just outlined above. |
6 |
|
7 |
Well, I've already written a few letters detailing my suggestions, so |
8 |
while I'm at it, I will comment on how my suggestions can work in this |
9 |
context. |
10 |
|
11 |
- I think NFP evolution must happen quickly, so a non-elected transition |
12 |
board is probably the best way, and I'm very happy to see it becoming |
13 |
more real every day |
14 |
|
15 |
- Election of the board on the developer corpus is a good idea, maybe |
16 |
one year for the transition board before elections is too much but we |
17 |
have other things to do than to run elections all the time |
18 |
|
19 |
- I fear that the number of board members (if all current "managers" go |
20 |
in) will be too much people to have good conflict resolution. 5 people |
21 |
would be the best, 7 is I think the upper limit... But you can think |
22 |
otherwise and/or it can be the mission of the transition board to set up |
23 |
a more effective structure |
24 |
|
25 |
- Board members will be in effect the project managers. I think a |
26 |
two-level structure would be more efficient. A small board deciding on |
27 |
the number and nature of the TLPs, and deciding on lead teams for each. |
28 |
But I also understand the will of long-time managers to keep some of |
29 |
their well-earned Gentoo status and be a board member and a project lead |
30 |
at the same time. I would be glad to hear from current managers about a |
31 |
board/projectlead separation system, just to know if I'm completely way out |
32 |
|
33 |
- I understand the need for using the trademark and keeping some of the |
34 |
cash flow generated by the Gentoo store, so I won't comment on that |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Thierry Carrez (koon) |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |