I think a the second is probably best: leader and committee with veto power.
It think the community is so small that it's not really necessary do everything through a committee. I personally don't think that I'm much of a decision maker when it comes to metalinks, I enjoy development to much. I think having a leader at this point would make the decisions more focussed and it should send a clearer picture to the outside world. So, my vote is for the second. (We are doing this in committee style now, right? ;) ) Bram On Aug 13, 7:04 pm, Ant Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 6, 1:42 am, Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > the SFC is an umbrella non-profit org, & Metalink joining would give > > us the benefits of being a non-profit w/o most of the administrative > > hassles. > > > about 20 other projects like Boost, Inkscape, jQuery, Mercurial, > > Samba, Sugar Labs, & Wine are members. > > >http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/overview/ > > it looks like the next step is to codify our decision making style. > > there are a number of choices, but I think one of these 3 fits how > we've been operating or might wish to operate in the future > > leader > leader and committee with veto power > committee > > the last 2 are probably the best fit, but I wanted to see what other > people think. it sounds like there would be few decisions to make a > year, so it's not too much work that's required of the committee. > > -- > (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [http://www.metalinker.org] > )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
