Cees de Groot
Fri, 11 May 2001 07:57:39 +0200
> But I admit I have difficulties with this chaordic thing (I nearly
> fainted when I read that many organizations take a year or more to go
> through the process...).
Well, organizations are often setup for "eternity". What's a measly year
compared to that?
> On the other hand, I don't want the Squeak Foundation ...
> * to only be a philosophizing (?) debating club
Neither do I. Nor do I want to quickly throw together a SqF and have us all
discover that we didn't want /that/ SqF in 6 months. The idea is to do a bit
of structured thinking work up front (and I think that the Chaordic process
helps with that) so we can do more useful things later on.
However, it seems that there's not much interest in this process. Which is a
pity, because it is one of the few ways I know to get all the agendas on the
table, get an inventory of who are /really/ interested enough to put in some
work, etcetera. A pessimist would say at this point that SqF can't reckon on
broad support. An optimist thinks that I simply fail to drive home how
important a bit of thinking and philosophizing (without reverting to BDUF) is
Apart from the last two points (about the "small circle" - I'd rather have a
proxy voting mechanism or something like that in place for decision making) I
think it's a very useful list of items. However, the /only/ way to give the
SqF the power of authority to actually pull this through is when either we as
a community setup a broadly carried SqF through a process like the current
one, or we sit back and wait for SqC to do so (that is of course what
basically happened with ApacheF). I think the results will be much better if
we, as a community, do this.
Anyway, people are busy, so I wanted to wait another week before taking a
"despair" measure and simply copy the NAMA list over :-).
Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <email@example.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B