Remove me from your e-mail list.
On 8/26/2011 1:44 PM, Nino on NetBSD 5.0.1 wrote:
Dear ReactOS members,
Following the advice of vicmarcal, I would like to herewith kindly propose a
topic for discussion at the next ReactOS meeting (whenever it is scheduled):
I. Authorisation
The question is how a person shall be empowered to act or speak for ReactOS, to
what degree in what way, with what binding effect and for what area; as well,
how such powers can be transferred and withdrawn. The scope shall at least
cover all NON-TECHNICAL aspects of ReactOS.
The motive for this proposal is this:
1. You have a lot of people who would like to help SOMEHOW, but not in a
technical manner. Many people have superior talents though not in the area of
software development; you have brilliant marketing people, economists, artists,
lawyers etc. out there, yet so far you lack any organised way to tie them
efficiently into the project. (You, being developers, of course know how to tie
in developers; but that is exactly what I am NOT talking about.) Figure the
people who neither wish to develop, nor wish to test, nor wish to translate...
but would not mind to order 200 pens and distribute them to IT students while
giving out some juice or something; basically stuff that someone may do for 100
EUR or less, but which, if done by 20-50 people over 5 years, may start to have
an effect.
2. We are talking about NON-TECHNICAL aspects. You have a working system for
development, there is no need to mess it up and this proposal would wind up in
a fruitless and infinite discussion. I propose to therefore not include
development into this.
The proposal may also be, of course, declined - especially if you prefer to
remain small for the time being. But that, just like the alternative of
allowing such help, should be a clear decision.
II. Organisation
Should the authorisation idea not be discussible or decidable at the time being, i.e. if there are
too many open questions and you can say neither "yes" nor "no", then I propose
alternatively to discuss organisation: WHO may decide WHAT under what circumstances and with what
effect; and especially, what is to be done if people dissent. - Because the above is not a big
deal, and if you cannot decide on the above, then chances are that you may wish to streamline your
decision-making process.
A few points to consider:
- Is it a more "democratic" system (broader consent, but sluggish and often without clear
direction) or a more "dictatorial" system (faster and clearer decisions, but maybe at
times against majoritary sentiments; the dictators may rotate, e.g. you are always dictator for
e.g. one calendar month, then comes the next person - maybe you apply the dictatorial principle
only for the everyday stuff, while big stuff needs common approval - which is not unlike to how a
government or a company works);
- What is needed to meet what decisions (e.g., BIG decisions, as such involving
entering into legally binding agreements with other entities in the name of ReactOS
will need more thorough consideration than inviting to a pizza& coke event to
promote ReactOS; you may set up rules on quorums and majorities);
- What means shall be there to perform tasks - and yes, the money question will
come up here. (Even the pizza& coke event needs some money.) You could say, up
to 5% of some certain fonds (to be filled by donations) may be used by ... for the
purposes of ... - You could also say, the person in charge of ... may do with his
OWN money whatever he likes, as long as he does not ... (please fill in as
considered proper).
These are just my humble proposals and it is up to you to decide on whether and
how they might be implemented or further explored. If you have any ideas to
improve or change them, please do not hesitate to comment accordingly.
Kind regards,
Aeneas
_______________________________________________
Ros-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
