At 10:10 PM 11/12/2001 +0800, Gunther Birznieks wrote: >At 10:48 PM 11/9/2001, Stephen Adkins wrote: >>Hi, >> >>We need a P5EE Board. >>A P5EE Board Member should be >> >> * well connected in the Perl community >> * experienced in writing Perl >> * a member of this list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> (i.e. willing to be at least a passive participant) >> >>The role of the Board will be >> >> * to ensure that P5EE goes in a direction which is >> strategic to the Perl community >> * to vote on (or help resolve) high-level, strategic decisions >> * to communicate (informally and formally) P5EE's existence >> and progress to other key players in the Perl community .... >I guess this is a bit odd. What type of questions would be asked that you >think can't be resolved by a few days of +,- voting? Or would you basically >assume that only board members really get to vote? .... >Would board members have their own private mailing list to discuss board >issues? .... >I am all for having a benevolent dictator (like Stephen) but I am not sure >what message having a P5EE "board" really sends in terms of openness of >getting everyone's contributions in at such an early stage. It almost seems >like it would make sense when the effort has been around 6 months and let's >see who has really ended up contributing the most. I am also a bit >concerned that it will be too heavily geared towards people who started >early in the project (like now) rather than people who might get into it >some months from now. .... >All the things you want a board member to do, I don't know why they have to >be a board member to do it. Evangelize P5EE elsewhere? I dont think you >need to be a board member to do that? Help decide key issues? Again, I >don't think you need to be a board member to get your voice heard, etc. .... >The way it is presented, I would say that I want to be a board member but >partially because I don't want to get left out of some decision that I feel >that if I read this mailing list I will see something that really means >something to me and want to speak out. ie I don't want to be helpless. But >at the same time, I don't think that's the right motivation to be a board >member.
Good points. The Board is certainly not of immediate importance and should be allowed to develop as the P5EE project develops and moves from vapor-ware to reality. Our first priority is making something real out of P5EE. Your questions are helping me clarify my thoughts however. First and foremost, there should be *no additional advantage* to being a Board member over being an active contributor to the project and the list. (i.e. Board members are not "senior" or "privileged" list members.) The P5EE project will be a meritocracy where those who contribute determine its direction. All significant votes will be made by the contributors. The concept of a P5EE Board is really a way to draw into the P5EE circle those who have proved their merit in Perl, but do not have the time to do so specifically on P5EE. (Perhaps the requirement that they belong to this list and endure all these messages should even be dropped.) I would hope that Larry Wall would want to be part of the Board. I would hope that every significant conversation anywhere in the world and at every conference about the "future of Perl" would include a reference to the P5EE. In fact, the P5EE Board is really a Board of Advisors rather than a Board of Directors. (Perhaps even more informally, a "friends of P5EE" group.) Perhaps it is premature to begin talking of a Board. As I have seen these things go, as long as we are going to follow through with this, it is never too early to begin planning for the long term. That having been said, we can really keep the idea of a Board on low on the back burner for now. It is not urgent. But if any Perl elders wish to have a voice on P5EE without necessarily being key contributors, I would see them having a role through a Board of Advisors. Stephen
