Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: RFC: OpenACS Governance
Either way. Once we have an initial core team, we will use the same procedures used by the Tcl/TK project, I quote:
"The original group of Team members was elected by the Tcl community, but the TCT now handles its own membership according to rules described here. To become a member of the Team you must be nominated by an existing member and voted on by the existing Team; you must receive 2/3 of the votes cast. If you would like to join the Tcl Core Team, you should first demonstrate your development skills and leadership by participating in development projects under the auspices of an existing team member."
So if the initial core team (or part of it) can monopolize the vote, then they could do anything that suits them best. And how is the initial core team formed: Peter posts the names, Don approves and then includes Peter in the team -- WOW there is a core team now.
Actually, is it not true that being on the core team could be a marketing advantage over the rest bidders for a contract? Just for the record, I want to state that I did not make *any* (as in zero) money for my work at OpenACS and my paying job has *nothing* to do with OpenACS.
And I, at least, think that any such claim is absolute bullshit. Virtue is in the work, not in whether the work is funded or not.
Well, again I do not agree with your point of view and that's only my humble opinion. If someone did contribute enough but he's competing with the monopolizers of the vote in the initial core team, he will not make it in no matter how much he contributes and you can quote me on that. Then, why someone contribute in OpenACS and not in some other project. If someone wanted to work for the company(ies) in a coalition that monopolizes the vote then he is better of applying for a job.
How would the clients using OpenACS feel about that -- that I cannot say. Is it not true that a possible coalition that monopolizes the vote in the core team will have a competitive advantage over the rest?
Other issues become serious then, why a possible coalition in the core team would welcome contributions for free (for say the work in a possible contract) when they could get pay for doing the same work.
I do not know the answers to these questions but they really beg for an answer.
"Criticism talks a good deal of nonsense, but even its nonsense is a useful force. It keeps the question of art before the world, insists upon its importance, and makes it always in order." --Henry James
People will either be invited or elected to the core team based on their participation in the community. They will be brought on because they've shown technical insite, leadership and a mature approach to working with others.
The first you've certainly shown. The other two you've left massive amounts to be desired with your petulant, immature behavior. You left *twice* and now you are coming back with the same bullshit that people heard, processed and responded to over a year ago. And they did it respectfully and with appreciation.
Your response was, of course, to withdraw, regardless of whether you lurked or not.
In the meantime, the community has grown a great deal and is on the brink of great success. This is due to the fact that the community ALREADY ACTS IN THE WAY YOU'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T!!!
There are at least two incidents of people getting involved *without* being funded for their work and getting important leadership roles. One is Joel Aufrecht picking up the documentation lead, the other is Jeroen van Dongen picking up the project management lead for dotWRK. Neither is being funded in this position, AFAIK, at least not from any of the TAB companies. But their work could certainly lead to money since they are doing such excellent work.
It's deeply annoying that you seem intent on bringing up this useless argument again. No one here is trying to overtake the community to dominate anyone.
If you want to make noise, stick around for a good 6 months without threats of forks or more withdrawals and then you can bring this stuff up.
Note, I'm not against criticism of the governance proposal, but I am against Neophytos' continuing this year-long troll, left over from the dotLRN governance discussion.