Re: Foundation summary
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>
- To: Mike Kestner <mkestner ameritech net>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Foundation summary
- Date: 29 Jul 2000 03:40:03 -0700
Mike Kestner <email@example.com> writes:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > The steering committee IMO has done a lot of good to improve
> > communication and coordination. The foundation's board won't be any
> > better than the steering committee, but it will be elected, which will
> > hopefully make people feel a lot better about it.
> Who are these people who need to feel better, and why are they whining
> about direction being set by some of the core contributors of the
Are you saying then, that you think the current steering committee is
OK and could continue in perpetuity for all you care, but a foundation
would be bad? I can't speak for the other members of the steering
committee, but I know that personally I would feel better about
representing GNOME to outsiders and trying to organize the project if
I were part of a group chosen specifically by the hackers, rather than
essenitally self-appointed. (Not that I know if I would even want to
be on the foundation board at this point.) I strongly suspect some
other steercom members feel the same way, and I don't think very many
of them feel the opposite.
It's possible that our desire to feel more legitimate about our
authority is entirely self-serving, but I think rather that we are
channeling a sense of discomfort felt by a lot of the community.
I understand your desire to avoid beaurocracy - I don't think any of
us want that, really. Mainly what we are trying to do is formalize
more or less what we have been doing already, and make it more open.
] [Thread Prev