[Members] XSF @ 10
kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Jul 13 10:00:35 UTC 2011
Lots of snipping.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> Right, the fact that our leadership, both technical and organizational, is
> failing to participate in some cases is not good at all.
Very much agreed. I'm aware I could be part of this problem and I'd
invite anyone who perceives as such to let me know things I need to
> Just on this point, we should ensure that whatever process we have is not
> gated on Peter. Not only is that making ourselves reliant on Peter's
> continued dedication, which simply isn't fair on Peter, but it's also going
> to be a choke point.
Right - if we were to do away with our current voted Council, Board
etc. I think there's a real danger of having an organisation that is
*entirely* dependent upon Peter as the ultimate
responsibility/benevolent dictator, rather than only mostly dependent
on him as we are now. I'd like to move in the other direction so we
can give Peter a rest sometimes.
> I don't see that hand-waving around words like "open", "flexible" and so on
> will magically make people interested in making comments on by-law amendment
> proposals, to pick an example where I *have* followed procedure, and been
> prevented from taking things further by pure apathy.
Right - although I think sometimes apathy is silent disagreement, I
suspect it normally isn't.
More information about the Members