| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:45 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> TL;DR: Projects already are designed to handle leadership internally. |
| 4 |
> This is best handled by those involved. Those that aren't involved |
| 5 |
> are |
| 6 |
> welcome to get involved if they think they can make an impact. You |
| 7 |
> can't force anyone to do anything, and attempting to do so is often |
| 8 |
> and |
| 9 |
> likely detrimental. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> -- |
| 12 |
> NP-Hardass |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not trying to drum up bureaucracy. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I just wanted to make sure that a project couldn't, even |
| 17 |
hypothetically, implode in stagnation with no way to break the |
| 18 |
deadlock...and possibly without having to have the council take time to |
| 19 |
deal with it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Key factors: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
1. IIRC, a project's lead has absolute power over who stays and who |
| 24 |
goes as a member |
| 25 |
2. the project lead is elected by the members |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
1 and 2 might form a feedback loop. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If i'm mistaken please feel free to correct. I'm not picking on any |
| 30 |
project in particular, just remember the recent fluffle with Games and |
| 31 |
curious if comrel intervention is the best or only way to break a |
| 32 |
deadlocked project. |
Archives