Re: Candidacy (Michael Meeks), I'm totaly misunderstood <sob>

Hi All,
        It seems my thesis that we want the board to be as full of
hackers[1] as possible has been rather distorted by follow ups.  Which
mostly seem to be of the form 'Here is 10 reasons why Bart would be
great on the Board'.
        I'd like to point out that Bart did not enter into my original
mail. I was more targeting the "I ask hard questions" and "I'll keep
the board honest" promises.
        It would seem to me obvious that Bart as a "Father of the
Foundation" figure should be intimately involved with the setting
up, administration and legal issues of the foundation. I don't think
we could go much further without him.
        But, while Bart's undoubtedly has valuable skills in meeting
management, administration and legal issues, I don't think this should
lead to him representing the Gnome community outside these areas, 
including on the board. I would be in favour of having him assist and
inform all the meetings, of course and ( perhaps ) being the ( paid ? )
handler of all day to day administrative work.

        So I'd like to re-iterate my contention.
        The hackers[1] currently collectively own and control the
Gnome project ( I know this is something Bart wants to preserve too ).
If we start adding non-hackers to the board 'we' start to loose what  
we used to own.

        Even if the board makes no significant technical decisions,
which I remain extremely unconvinced about, I maintain that hackers[1]
better represent the Gnome community than any other.

        So in summary; I think the people best equipped to represent
and lead the Gnome team are the technical[2] people who have so far 
created what we have.

        To spoof RMS, when considering voting people to the board
don't say 'value added non-hackers' say 'hacker subtracted board 


 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]