Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws


Hello Olivier,

Le Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:17:16 -0200,
Olivier Hallot <olivier.hallot@documentfoundation.org> a écrit :

Hi

Some thoughts and questions from my personal experience:

1) I am a bit concerned of the definition of project: It looks like
TDF will foster several software projects, which is fine for me, but
then (may be I am a bit biased by OOo structure), how do we manage
NLC, L10n, Marketing and other "projects"? Does "software
development" include all these activities?

Well, indeed you think like we're still on the Collabnet
infrastructure :-) . I think we would refer to teams for L10N,
marketing, etc, not "projects". I was rather referring to different
types of software when talking about software projects. 



2) I really appreciate *oxygenation*. Letting a chairman "ad
aeternam" in place is a source of trouble and will let him build
strong and unbreakable ties with the BoD, the employees and selected
sectarian members of the Foundation (the "goodfellas"), aiming to
preserve his status and position and offering whatever is needed to
keep support on him.

A one or two year term with one further nominaton will ensure fresh
air (sort of) to the TDF Chairmanship. The leaving chairman can be 
reconducted later, but only after another one took his place for at 
least xxx month.

Let's put it that way: the Chairman is fireable at will, and is an
employee of the foundation. Otherwise, I fear we're going to go back
into byzantine considerations, that will end up being abused or
impractical. 


Oxygenation also improves governance and transparency.

yes it does: but the Chairman (or any other officer for that matter) is
changeable at will by the BoD, so it's not an elected mandate. 

3) About disputes: It seems that the disputes will be settled "inside 
TDF" by the BoD, then the Chairman. Question: Is it advisable, for
the sake of transparency, to let the members decide as the upper
instance?


What do you mean? that they can pick either one of them? 


4) On conflict of interest, I personnaly prefer 20% figure instead of
30%.

So it would be two instead of three members. It's possible I think...
any further thoughts? 


5) Should any member of the Membership Committee (MC) have a "veto
power"?

No. 


5a) Oh, by the way, what is the decision process of the MC with
respect to the aplication? votes by simple majority, 2/3 members, 4/5?

Simple majority or consensus (most of the information collected about
an application should ideally be automated), but the MC is a committee
formed by the BoD and I don't think we should go all the way explaining
how the MC will work. I think several "versions" of the MC will have to
be enabled before we reach the right balance. 


6) How many members will take place in the MC and how are they 
appointed, for how long, how often they meet?

See above. 


Are we going to allow memebers of the BoD, AB, and the Chariman to be
in the MC?

I don't see why we should forbid them this access, but I also think
that the MC will have a certain amount of work that will be
incompatible with the existing duties of these people. 


7) "If a Member stops contributing, such that the merit criteria are
no longer met, membership status will be revoked after a certain
period of time.

Does it means that a founding member of the TDF will be revoked if 
he/she does not participate on a xxx period of time? Shall we give
them a "honorary membership" (dangerous).

Honorary membership is indeed a dangerous path. But on the other hand,
any member can regain its membership status after three months of
continued contributions , so it's only a temporary and easily
remediable issue in the scenario you're describing...

Best,
Charles. 


Regards,

Em 29-11-2010 15:23, Charles-H. Schulz escreveu:
Hello everyone,

Here is the latest version of the bylaws:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws

Latest change include mostly amended details on the Chairperson, as
well as some more details on the BoD and a bit more clarity on
salaries, expenses, etc.

Since we've been discussing this for quite some time now, we would
welcome your comments on this list until this week-end. If no strong
veto is cast until then, we'll consider them to be adopted.

David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks!





-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.