| 1 |
> - I fear that the number of board members (if all current |
| 2 |
> "managers" go |
| 3 |
> in) will be too much people to have good conflict resolution. |
| 4 |
> 5 people would be the best, 7 is I think the upper limit... |
| 5 |
> But you can think otherwise and/or it can be the mission of |
| 6 |
> the transition board to set up a more effective structure |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, I've contacted all those who have the opportunity and we'll see how |
| 9 |
the numbers turn out. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> - Board members will be in effect the project managers. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes and no. This *may* be the case, but is no longer required like it was |
| 14 |
with managers. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>From the email I sent to trustee candidates: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
"Being a trustee does not carry with it any additional responsibilities. It |
| 19 |
is not like being a manager where you are required to have a top-level |
| 20 |
project that you are actively leading. The trustees will simply ensure that |
| 21 |
an effective and fair organizational model exists for the development |
| 22 |
project as a whole, and oversee it in as gentle and positive a way as |
| 23 |
possible." |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I think a two-level structure would be more efficient. A small |
| 26 |
> board deciding on the number and nature of the TLPs, and |
| 27 |
> deciding on lead teams for each. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think that this is something that will probably happen naturally at the |
| 30 |
NFP matures. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Daniel |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |
Archives