Re: Defining GNOME software (finally)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:48 AM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro gnome org> wrote:

You should also know that becoming a committee will involve some small
changes [3]:

  - You'll need to have membership changes ratified by the board
  - You'll need to have a chair, and minuted meetings
  - You'll need to keep the board informed about how things are going

Having membership changes ratified seems fairly low cost. We normally
hold one formal meeting per year, which we take private notes on, so
the only change there would be to make those minutes formal and public.
Most of our decision-making occurs on IRC, and not as part of any
formally organized meeting, and therefore is not minuted. Then keeping
the board informed about goings-on also sounds low cost. So this all
sounds fine to me. If anyone wants to object, please do so now.

I think if you're making decisions that aren't recorded then how does
that get communicated to the board if there are no formalisms?
Granted, I think most of those decisions that are made on irc are
fairly pedestrian and is not particularly worth nothing - but without
some formalism you have no framework on what is of interest and what
isn't, no?

Regarding "what is GNOME?" - this always ended up being more political
in the past because invariable people are interested in the branding
as being core means that we have a different set of expectations.

Changes made to the buildstream configs - is there a process there
given that it could be political?


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