I fully support the sentiments made here (John and Wayne) which look a lot
more workable to me than the AIUI more formal ideas placed in John's original
post.
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 8:32:49 AM, jpinkerton wrote:
j> Well put Wayne. This was my next point too.
j> In my opinion all work should be done on a time-framed project basis. This
j> simply means that - for example - Koen agrees to run the support team from
j> date to date. The start and end are *clearly* defined. If he wishes to
j> continue beyond that end date and everyone is in agreement, then that's
j> fine, but the important thing is that we are not *stuck* - either as a group
j> or individually. A person volunteering must state his end date and so will
j> not feel obliged to go on for ever, and the group accepting a volunteer
j> knows that end date they will be able to change the person in that job at a
j> specific date in the future. Normally, people volunteering would be
j> restricted to a maximum of one year's commitment.
I've always believed that best work is done when small teams are
delegated responsibilty to run with tasks without interference.
A side effect of a defined period before redelegation for a volunteer
is that a volunteer knows that they can make progress fast and that
there is opportunity for the community to decline to redelegate where
friction of some individuals is causing poor progress.
So, I say keep it simple. We have gone from no organization, to
considering a more formal organization, but we don't need to be a
501(c)3 with audited financial statements and membership cards.
j> KISS indeed. I am totally opposed to any "constitution" or "charter" - what
j> on earth is the point when we have no legal status or powers to enforce it?
j> A well written set of rules will easily suffice, with the rule not being
j> more than a requirement for elected members to vote on every issue.
Yes!
j> The
j> *one* thing that will kill the whole effort quickly is non-participation. If
j> a member doesn't vote on two issues in succession, he should be replaced
j> forthwith. The beaurocrats amonst us will throw their collective hands in
j> the air in horror at this, but experience has shown that in a short-lived
j> group like this it is the quickest, most easily understood and most
j> effective method of working.
And forget votes on everything! Votes should only /rarely/ be used when
seeking to resolve a hung concensus. Experience in this group makes
me think that Yes/No answers are not useful. I two paragraph
statement of position seems to me more useful in covering a range of
ideas and finding concensus. I'm thinking of the scope tag within
v=spf1 - it wasn't added fast enough to the Classic spec so an endrun
by MS means everyone being forced to opt out of PRA rather than opt
in.
j> William's vote results have given the steering council a series of answers
j> which form a mandate, and we all are pretty much in agreement on the SPF
j> goals, so anything more is already too much.
Yes, we are in a race, there is not time to go back over old ground.
My only worry is how the community should react to delegated
volunteers moving goalposts and following their own agenda.
j> Slainte,
j> JohnP.
--
Best regards,
Shane