Re: Discussing issues

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 08:45:24PM -0400, David Wexelblat wrote: 
> > Which is why I think the issues are completely about process, and not at all
> > about governance, and (IMHO) why we aren't making concrete progress, as
> > governance is Jim's explicitly stated, and (I think) Keith's
> > not-so-explicitly-stated fundamental issue, reading through these
> > conference-call transcripts.
> 
> I think you're missing some background on what Jim had to say.
> 
> The context Jim alludes to was a several-meeting-long discussion that
> went on in the GNOME Foundation board about who should be able to vote
> for the board. We ended up basically saying that if you felt like you
> were a contributor and could point to anything that was
> reasonably/arguably a contribution, even a small one, you could vote
> for the board. The alternative was to define in some way a "large
> enough" contribution.

   What's the matter with defining "large enough" to be "has made
significant contributions over many years"?  That sounds like as
good a metric as any, perhaps better than all others.  Though I can
pretty much guarantee you that by that definition the vote would
leave pretty much all of the current board and core intact. 


   This appears to disturb some people.  Why is that?  And what
justification do you have that this is not the best way for things
to be - with the people who have contributed the most having the
most say?  


			Mark.