Re: sub-committees [was Re: Board Minutes 29 September 2004]

[Leslie Proctor <proctors pacbell net>]

I'm working on the write-up of the idea now - but to
give everyone a general idea of the thinking - this is
to bring some of the great energy and structure that
exists in the development teams to some of the other
very necessary parts of GNOME.  

We're at a critical juncture here.  We need to spend
some energy on marketing, etc. and we need to put
together a structure that will attract new people and
get some stuff done.  GNOME is completely awesome, but
if we can't get market and mindshare, then....  These
committees would work to do that - and hopefully
attract talented people with different skills from all
over and then empower them and give them direction to
kick some butt for GNOME.  I can think of several
people, who are not developers, but have skills and
contacts that could make a significant contribution to
GNOME.  They're contributing now, but, given the right
structure and some other people with similar interests
and abilities - watch out!

The overall idea is that board members would take part
in the committees, but not necessarily (and preferably
not) lead them.  Each committee would create a
"roadmap" yearly - goals, timelines, etc. which would
then be shared with the board and the foundation. 
Progress and wins would also be shared in a similar
fashion.  

I'm working on the write-up of this now and will
refine it with the board before we propose it at
large.  So be patient - it's on its way.

Leslie
  
--- Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com> wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 20:21, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 15:24 +0100, Mark McLoughlin
> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 21:00, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > 
> > > >         Leslie raised the idea of mixed
> board/non-board sub-committees
> > > >         for Marketing, Fundraising, Developer
> development, and so forth.
> > > 
> > > 	Something about this kind of talk has been
> worrying me lately. Maybe
> > > its not a big deal and I'm rambling, though.
> > > 
> > > 	Thinking about how our community might evolve
> over the next number of
> > > years, you might imagine two very different
> scenarios:
> > > 
> > >   1) Global GNOME forward thinking is handled by
> small groups, 
> > >      sub-committees, teams or think-tanks. These
> are usually board 
> > >      initiated, consist largely of GNOME
> "luminaries" and have minuted 
> > >      meetings.
> > > 
> > >   2) Any new initiatives or looking towards the
> future are started by 
> > >      individuals in public, open to all to
> discuss. Loose, informal 
> > >      groups sometimes form around ideas to get
> them going.
> > 
> > Well, I think you should probably wait to see what
> Leslie writes up.
> 
> 	Yeah, I'm not attacking the idea, or even just
> talking about this idea.
> Just trying to start a friendly conversation :-)
> 
> > But the whole idea of mixed board / non-board
> sub-committees is to
> > enable people who say "I'd like to get involved
> with X" and have a
> > place to go with it. Also, providing some
> quasi-official status for
> > some of these activities can be a definite help
> when going out to
> > talk to companies, goverments, NGOs, etc.
> > 
> > (As seen in the recent past, we'd really like
> people to be working
> > somewhat in the GNOME structure when they go out
> and say "I represent
> > GNOME")
> 
> 	But isn't "I represent GNOME" just "I'm a GNOME
> foundation member and
> represent the rough consensus of the foundation"?
> Any time someone is in
> that position of representing the consensus, do we
> form a new team and
> make that person leader, just so he/she can feel
> they can go out and
> represent GNOME?
> 
> > There may not be a significant difference between
> this and the 
> > current idea we have of "teams" (docs, i18n,
> etc.).
> 
> 	What I like about these teams is that they're
> defined by very specific
> tasks and responsibilities.
> 
> > > 	i.e. instead Marketing, Fundraising and
> Developer Development
> > > committees, surely we want to leave the void in
> which a new leader can
> > > "explode, fully-formed out of freak lightning
> strikes and nuclear
> > > waste"[1]. How can we expect someone to scratch
> an itch if we keep
> > > putting slapping on band-aids?
> > 
> > But how often does this happen for anything but
> code? Even if somebody
> > steps up, expresses interest, does a bunch of
> work, I think we tend
> > frequently to basically ignore it until the person
> loses interest.
> 
> 	Yep, unless that person is a member of some
> committee or team and feels
> empowered enough by that to just run with their
> idea. Do we *want* to go
> further down that road, or are we just going there
> because we've no
> better ideas?
> 
> > > 	Does (2) more closely reflect what how we'd
> like this community to
> > > operate? Or is it inevitable, given the size of
> the community, that any
> > > attempt by someone[2] to take on any difficult
> issue in public will find
> > > themselves bogged down by indecision, flames and
> huge discussions about
> > > irrelevant side matters?
> > 
> > I just don't see how you get somewhere in making
> the marketing of GNOME
> > better by *just* posting emails. How do we
> transition from talk, to say,
> > getting brochures printed up to hand out at
> tradeshows?
> 
> 	Okay, but what if the GNOME summaries didn't exist,
> someone had the
> idea of doing them and thought the best thing to do
> is suggest it to the
> marketing committee? Good chances nothing would
> happen, right? But if
> the marketing committee didn't exist, maybe the
> person would just go off
> and do it?
> 
> 	So, a group formed to handle specific tasks is good
> (the tradeshow
> team?), but a group formed to own a large, vague,
> poorly defined area is
> dangerous, IMHO.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
>
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>