Re: Bylwas Revision: COMMITTEES

On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:25:49AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would rather favor having individuals making those decisions. Committees
> are useful if you want to slow down any possible dangerous decisions or
> if power needs to be controller but Committees are not useful for day to
> day operations. I would like this to be as non-political as possible. So
> far we have had a pretty informal structure and it worked mostly.
pretty informal works for an informal group like a Free Software project.
However, SPI is a legal entity and needs more structure, if for no other
reason, to protect itself.

It doesn't have to be overly complicated, either, just "clear" (quotes
because clear means in the eyes of various regulatory bodies). Still,
some formality is necessary or clarity.

> Could we make all of this as simple as possible? This looks more and more
> to me as if we are building a big administrative apparatus.
There's noting "administrative" in what's been done yet... 'cept somehow a
membership roll (well, two) has to be kept... Committees. Having
committees doesn't make it administrative. It might slow things down.. and
it might be necessary to build a safeguard against that (teams, instead of
committees where speed is important).. but it is a necessity to define
what's going to take place...

>
> I would like to see a list of jobs for individuals within SPI and then a
> responsibility to the BOD.
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Nils Lohner wrote:

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================