Hi Andreas!

Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Goran,
> 
> 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