Jim: the best explanation of my issues with the current governance plan are in
the main governance thread that Carl refers to. I'll spare you the repetition :)
The most concise summary is that this process in no way resembles existing
successful open-source governance. I don't consider that any one of us is
qualified to invent a brand new open-source governance plan that no one has
ever tested before. That is the big red flag, IMO.
Carl: your message is puzzling. In late July, I presented my governance plan
to you in person in Boston. According to the governance bboard thread, my
first public contribution to the discussion happened on August 7th when I put
forth this plan in writing. I posted 8 times in two days explaining my opinion. I
never wavered. I have trouble seeing how you didn't know what I thought until
last Thursday.
If you assumed I would compromise on my principles, then I can understand
your surprise.
What may surprise you even more is that I never expected my turning down
this new governance plan position to become such a huge issue. But now I
truly fear for dotLRN: should the community expect this kind of treatment if we
disagree with the rules set forth by the executive board? Participate according
to your rules (however they may change) or be accused of blowing holes in
the dotLRN boat? Comply or become alienated? Do what you say or expect
multi-pronged attacks in public?
A brand new governance plan was just enacted. Prior to this, I tried for weeks
to convince you that it was a poor choice. I failed to do so. My choice was
binary: participate in a plan I consider flawed to the core, or opt not to
participate. I chose not to participate, and I have trouble seeing the flaw in
that.
You're right, I am governed by my own will, and proud of it. In the open-source
world, this is usually considered a good thing.
