Board communication
Craig Latta
craig at netjam.org
Tue Apr 25 07:40:56 UTC 2006
Hi Peter--
> It's a little difficult to tell, as the board *still* has no published
> way of working...
So far we have discussed open issues on the (private) board mailing
list. We have informally drafted Tim to be the spokesperson, but, as one
can see from this message, at various times different members have
communicated with squeak-dev. We like the idea of having a timeout on
the discussions, so that things actually keep moving.
I personally have tried to keep open issues from languishing. For
example, when there was a vacuum surrounding who would take over liaison
roles between teams and the board, I just volunteered for all of the
open slots in order to keep things moving (deferring to anyone else who
wanted them).
I have a relatively large amount of time and energy I can devote to the
Board, by the way.
> ...there is (to my knowledge) no formal constitution of the Squeak
> Foundation despite it handling donations...
Good point, and we are discussing that.
> ...and there appears not even to be any way of agreeing on what the
> board has done in order to present it at intervals to the wider
> community (witness Stef's and Craig's recent emails).
I think there actually is a consensus on how to do that, but (no
offense, Stef), Stef seems to be a bit trigger-happy.
> If I'm wrong on any of these, I'd love to know; but it appears that
> the new board is no more functional than the last when it comes to
> communication.
Yes, I think you are wrong. :)
thanks,
-C
--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|