Fwd: Re: X.Org Foundation - Conference Call Agenda - 6th April 2004

>Resent-Date: 6 Apr 2004 14:49:19 -0000
>Subject: Re: X.Org Foundation - Conference Call Agenda - 6th April 2004
>From: Jim Gettys <[email protected]>
>To: Xorg Foundation <[email protected]>
>Organization: HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory
>X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6
>Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:48:57 -0400
>X-HPLC-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
>X-HPLC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-HPLC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
>         SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5, BAYES_00 -4.90)
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
>version=2.63
>Resent-To: [email protected]
>Resent-From: [email protected]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>X-Mailing-List: xorg_foundation:archive/latest/371
>X-Loop: [email protected]
>Resent-Sender: [email protected]
>
>
> > 1. Administrative Items
> > 2. Vote to Approve Member Agreement
> >        Please see the version distributed on Friday 2nd April.
> > 3. Press Release
> >        Interim Board/Marketing Lists Only - Draft 09 will be
> > circulated shortly.
> > 4. Vote to Approve Issuing Press Release
> > 5. Vote to Approve Foundation 1st Release
> > 6. Election Process and Voting Mechanism (Howard)
> >        Please see the document circulated for March 16th call.
>
>
>There are some subtle points here, but I believe important ones.
>
>Votes should be reserved to only when rough consensus *cannot*
>be achieved, yet to make progress, a decision *must* be taken
>that *cannot* be delayed.  I suspect that we won't have anything
>here that is contentions and requires voting.
>
>And a bunch of these items should be delegated, in my view,
>rather than requiring direct board involvement. (e.g. releases
>to those putting together the releases, etc).
>
>It should be the board's responsibility to ensure releases
>happen in a timely fashion and to get the resources and people
>set up to do them, but leaving the releases to those who do the
>work is the right precedent, in my view.
>
>I know that such voting is how the X.Org consortium ran, but
>then again, we aren't the consortium.  In some sense, the board
>is here to serve the community, not to exercise control over it,
>unless something is going badly wrong.
>                           - Jim
>
>
>--
>Jim Gettys <[email protected]>
>HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory