David T. Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 05:43:29AM +0300, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>   
>> Because of a disturbing events which came after Andreas announced new plan,
>> that release team member(s) not seeing their own place under this
>> plan, and think it can seriously endanger/cancel all what have been
>> done during last few years,
>> i proposing on a next board meeting to invite a release team members
>> to discuss the problem(s) and find a compromise/solution which would
>> satisfy everyone.
>>     
>
> There is no way to say this without hurting someone's feelings, so
> let me just say it plainly: Andreas' proposal is absolutely the right
> thing to do. I strongly support it, and I strongly support the board's
> approval for moving forward on implementing the process.
>
>   
>> This disturbance & fighting is the last thing i expected to occur,
>> when i gave my vote for Andreas proposal.
>>     
>
> It is right for the board to have this discussion, and hopefully a
> consensus will emerge from it. Nevertheless, there are times when not
> everyone will be happy, and this may be one of those times. Hurt
> feelings or no, let's do the right thing and move forward.
>
> Dave
>   
Dave with respect,

I think you are wrong, and I am not the only one, however the
technicalities of the situation are irrelevant.

The fact remains that the board made decisions about the release without
any discussion with the release team that they appointed. The board is
intended to be a body that provides guidance oversight and liason. In
the past it has always taken a hands off approach seeking to liase with
the teams that volunteer to do the work. The board has no authority to
tell squeakers what to do, this is a community of volunteers who spend
considerable amounts of time and effort working on everyones behalf. The
only barely real power the board has is to decide who can use the name
squeak.

It doesn't matter what you think of the work, if you delegate
responsibility to a team, you should leave that responsibility delegated
to that team, and communicate with that team, until such a time as you
seek to replace that team with fair due process.  If you appoint a
release team leader repsonsible for a release then you have given that
leader the authority to organise that release. You should not undermine
or usurp that authority, even board members should seek to work under
the team leaders that they appointed, other wise it makes a mockery of
the appointment of team leader. It is entirely out of order to self
appoint yourself as a replacement team leader, just because you have
been elected to the board. That is not liason, nor is it oversight. If
the board wants to find a new release team, then it should start a due
process of liason and consultation, recruiting volunteers and seeking a
new team leader. If a board member was to self-appoint himself as a team
leader this would probably be an abuse of his political position.

Take for example 3.10, did the board override Ralph ever? Did it want
to? I venture to say probably, but they would never have been so crass
as to do so without some public debate, and consensus over a prolonged
period. Even when Ralph disappeared for several months the board took
steps to try and phone him before making rash decisions.

We elected the board to represent us in a professional manner, with an
expectation that they would act with some level of decorum and
considered judgement. Thus far I am sorely disappointed.

Ask yourself how you would feel if 3 years of your work was summarily
discarded in this manner? And ask youself if you would be willing to
work without pay for anyone who was to treat you like this, not likely I
feel.

Keith