Re: Planning releases

[Bart Decrem <bart eazel com>]

I think Joe suggested that maybe such a committee would report directly to the
members, but I'm not a big fan of creating too many layers of structure that all
need to be elected etc.   So I was kind of thinking it'd be more like a committee
appointed by the board that would be in charge of releases.  So the board would
then focus on the corporate/pr/funding issues and the committee would then oversee
releases.  And so the committee is created by the board and doesn't necessarily
need to be in the bylaws.

Bart

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Bart Decrem <bart@eazel.com> writes:
> >
> > Would the solution be to have a Releases Committee that reports to the board?
> >
>
> This seems to be just creating another board. (I mean, you have to
> elect the release committee, define their powers, etc., just as you do
> for the board. So any objections that apply to the board also apply to
> the release committee. Right?)
>
> If we're going to have a small group work on this, is there a reason
> to make a different body from the board responsible? What does the
> separation achieve - would different people be in each group, or would
> it just be twice as many meetings for the same core developers?
>
> Of course, the board doesn't have to do everything it's responsible
> for personally; they could delegate to volunteers or whatever. But if
> the board implemented its responsibility for releases via a committee,
> that wouldn't be institutionalized in the bylaws, I wouldn't think.
>
> Havoc