Re: let's do a quick vote on the charter

> Also, feel free to comment on why you voted a particular way here, it
> might spawn useful discussions of particular issues.

  I voted no, only due to the slate problem (sorry I misunderstood
that part when I reviewed the charter back in July, I should have
raised this earlier :-\).

  I'm basically afraid that slates are a too complex political
construct considering the state of the art in this domain and in
the Gnome community. Building those definitely would take time.
I'm also unsure it's the best way to represent the interest of
the Gnome community. Let's take the example of representativity
of a portion of the gnome project (locality or activity) and use
the representativity of the documentation project within the board:
  - the slate approach to tackle this would be to add someone 
    closely on touch with the Doc project within the slate(s)
  - the direct democratic approach would be to have such
    people on touch with the Doc project state publicly
    "elect X or Y because we need Doc representativity in the Board"

  I still prefer the second approach because the decision is fully
left to the voters at the end. It also lower the possibility of bias
in the election due to possible non-representativity of the list
of slates. I expect direct vote to also eat up less time overall
from the community needed to get a good democratic vote, but I
have no hard data for this so it's just expectations at that point.


Daniel Veillard w3 org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux XML libxml WWW
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Gnome rpm2html rpmfind  | RPM badminton Kaffe

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