1 |
On 10/06/2016 06:09 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:45 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> 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 are |
5 |
>> welcome to get involved if they think they can make an impact. You |
6 |
>> can't force anyone to do anything, and attempting to do so is often and |
7 |
>> likely detrimental. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> -- |
10 |
>> NP-Hardass |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I'm not trying to drum up bureaucracy. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I just wanted to make sure that a project couldn't, even hypothetically, |
15 |
> implode in stagnation with no way to break the deadlock...and possibly |
16 |
> without having to have the council take time to deal with it. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Key factors: |
19 |
> |
20 |
> 1. IIRC, a project's lead has absolute power over who stays and who |
21 |
> goes as a member |
22 |
> 2. the project lead is elected by the members |
23 |
> |
24 |
> 1 and 2 might form a feedback loop. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> If i'm mistaken please feel free to correct. I'm not picking on any |
27 |
> project in particular, just remember the recent fluffle with Games and |
28 |
> curious if comrel intervention is the best or only way to break a |
29 |
> deadlocked project. |
30 |
> |
31 |
If a project a malicious dictator for a leader, then the project can |
32 |
elect a new leader. If that fails, in the absolute worse case scenario, |
33 |
the developers that agree with the current situation are free to leave |
34 |
and start their own project. Meta structure allows them to do this |
35 |
without impediment, especially since contradictory and competing |
36 |
projects are allowed. In a more favorable outcome, the malicious |
37 |
dictator does something to warrant external intervention from either |
38 |
Council or ComRel, depending on the situation. It's not great in any |
39 |
case, but it isn't completely dire. |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
NP-Hardass |