| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:22 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> No, you don't need a project lead. You can just say any member can speak |
| 4 |
> for the whole project at any time. Whether that works or not, is a |
| 5 |
> different thing, but it's a valid model. |
| 6 |
> Decisions can be reached by whatever method you want, with or without a |
| 7 |
> lead. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What matters is that the project is _functional_ and _responsive_. How |
| 10 |
> they do that should be up to the and should not be specified anywhere. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, as long as everybody agrees there is no need for rules. The |
| 14 |
rules come into play when people disagree. Nobody is suggesting that |
| 15 |
project members can't just speak for the project if that is how the |
| 16 |
project wants to operate. However, when there is disagreement then it |
| 17 |
makes sense to allow an elected lead to step in, otherwise everybody |
| 18 |
is just going to appeal to the council, which is after all intended to |
| 19 |
be the escalation path for stuff projects can't handle on their own. |
| 20 |
I'm sure the Council members don't want to be stepping into every |
| 21 |
little debate, and I'm even more sure that everybody else doesn't want |
| 22 |
that either. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think some kind of standardization is useful just so that people |
| 25 |
know how to engage projects. However, if we want to have projects |
| 26 |
specify their own engagement/escalation models I don't have a problem |
| 27 |
with that. Of course, if the project can't bother to elect a lead, |
| 28 |
I'd be shocked if they actually reached a formal consensus on some |
| 29 |
other governance model. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I don't think anybody wants to increase the level of formality. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives