+1 to all of the below.  I would support a reduction to 5 as it is my
understanding is that when a group that needs to communicate well grows
beyond this number the efficiency of communication drops significantly.

Ken

On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 02:33 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 20.02.2009, at 02:09, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone  
> > and
> > yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
> >
> > But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more  
> > members this
> > year.
> 
> Which work specifically do you mean would benefit from being split  
> amongst more people? IMHO the "work" mainly consists of communicating,  
> and bringing more people in grows the number of communication paths  
> exponentially.
> 
> > Any is against ?
> 
> Yes. When we discussed this today in the leadership meeting, the  
> majority felt that 7 are quite enough, some even thought 5 would be  
> sufficient.
> 
> > Why ?
> 
> 
> We don't have to do the *actual* work ourselves (at least not in our  
> elected role), our job is to facilitate or, if necessary, delegate.  
> Speaking as someone serving for 3 years now I can say that reaching  
> consensus with 7 is already hard, and more would make group meetings  
> quite uncomfortable.
> 
> - Bert -
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090220/2a96be77/attachment.pgp