+ 1

Pissing on our past efforts to build the squeakFoundation does not  
help, and is rather easy and
populist. "Yeah squeak is not democratic"

We have an archive full of trials to motivate people to participate  
and failure.

Stef

>> goran at krampe.se wrote:
>>> One other thing I would like noted is that Andreas explicitly did  
>>> not
>>> "acknowledge" the Coordinators-group in any way when we contacted  
>>> him as
>>> a contact person for Croquet and Tweak, but he took the role  
>>> anyway as
>>> an "envoy". I would only assume that goes for the current board too
>>> (after the merge with Stephane and Noury).
>>
>> I'm actually looking forward to changing that relation when there  
>> is a
>> board that has an actual mandate by the community. Even if it's a  
>> rough
>> cut with the elections it will be indefinitely better than the  
>> current
>> or (even worse) the initial situation.
>
> Good! And btw, what are *you* doing to help this forward? It is all
> about talkers and doers - you do *tons* of stuff technically (and you
> know I respect and admire that immensely) but AFAIK you haven't helped
> us move an inch forward regarding our self organization - on the
> *contrary*.
>
> So sure, fee free to "look forward" to a new board - but even better:
> *help* this community getting it. And if you think I am the only one
> feeling this - read Marcus' post.
>
>>> So personally, when I read the recent posts about decision processes
>>> etc, I do it in the light of the above - with a tired ironic  
>>> smile on my
>>> face.
>>
>> *Shrug* If that's what it takes. I was just trying to be helpful  
>> in what
>> I considered an actual (non-rethorical) question in the context of a
>> discussion. I really do think that transparent decision processes are
>> important to address these issues.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>    - Andreas
>
> I just humbly wonder why you didn't bother to even *reply* to the  
> survey
> emails which AFAIK asked quite a few questions regarding these things.
> Regarding the question at hand - of course, I agree - a better  
> decision
> process *is* important - we all agree on that. The problem is *getting
> it*. I mean, if the stakeholder contact persons don't even bother  
> answer
> our emails - then what chance do we have? A decision *process*  
> involves
> all parties - not just the board.
>
> It is also worth remembering that the *current* team model  
> delegates how
> each team works to the team leader. The minimalism in that is
> intentional to make it as "easy" as possible to step up as a team
> leader. If we add too much bureaucracy to the team model it will
> probably have a negative effect.
>
> Concrete proposal to the new board:
>
> One idea to tackle this without introducing bureacracy in the team  
> model
> is to make the board offer a "service" for this (using the board  
> contact
> that each team leader has) so that the team leader doesn't need to
> bother too much with the hows and whats. To be more concrete:
>
> If say the release team leader thinks he needs to get a vote on  
> planned
> features to make some tough decisions - he simply asks the board  
> contact
> to "make it happen" with a list of things to vote on. The board knows
> how to perform such a vote (software, announcement, document it for
> posterity etc) and feed the result back to the team leader. In short -
> the board could offer a "decision process" to the team leaders that  
> they
> can use when they see fit.
>
> regards, Göran
>