29 Aug
2011
29 Aug
'11
3:57 p.m.
Hi!
There are nice points in your suggestions.Our internal organization has been improved
thanks to the regular monthly meetings.However these regular meetings are new and a lot of
"needs" must be covered. The first regular meetings have been development
focused(cmake adoption,gsoc,arwinss,..)but there are also some little winks to the ReactOS
community(new website revamp discussion,ReactOS meeting minutes,and some tries of ReactOS
Collaborative testing).Imo we need first(#1) to fix/solve/improve our internal
development(reducing potential dramas,problems and deciding our objectives),then(#2) the
Community(improving our communication with the Forum users,improving their sense of
community feeling,and helping them to help us) and in a third step comes the PRing which
means a solid structure to promote ReactOS.
If we begin PRing without having a stable internal organization(#1) or a stable
community(#2),then the newcomers wont stay long among us.Also coordinating all of them
would be almost impossible to handle :)
We are in the middle of step #1.Hope we can move soon to #2 thanks to suggestions as
yours.
After the release is done(hope It'll be during the following weeks)I'll try to
rise attention to this email :)
Again,before moving to fix #3 we should considering creating a structure to fix #2 first.
Best regards :)
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 29/08/2011, a las 16:47, "Michael Klos" <michael(a)klos.com> escribió:
Remove me from your e-mail list.
On 8/26/2011 1:44 PM, Nino on NetBSD 5.0.1 wrote:
Dear ReactOS members,
Following the advice of vicmarcal, I would like to herewith kindly propose a topic for
discussion at the next ReactOS meeting (whenever it is scheduled):
I. Authorisation
The question is how a person shall be empowered to act or speak for ReactOS, to what
degree in what way, with what binding effect and for what area; as well, how such powers
can be transferred and withdrawn. The scope shall at least cover all NON-TECHNICAL aspects
of ReactOS.
The motive for this proposal is this:
1. You have a lot of people who would like to help SOMEHOW, but not in a technical
manner. Many people have superior talents though not in the area of software development;
you have brilliant marketing people, economists, artists, lawyers etc. out there, yet so
far you lack any organised way to tie them efficiently into the project. (You, being
developers, of course know how to tie in developers; but that is exactly what I am NOT
talking about.) Figure the people who neither wish to develop, nor wish to test, nor wish
to translate... but would not mind to order 200 pens and distribute them to IT students
while giving out some juice or something; basically stuff that someone may do for 100 EUR
or less, but which, if done by 20-50 people over 5 years, may start to have an effect.
2. We are talking about NON-TECHNICAL aspects. You have a working system for development,
there is no need to mess it up and this proposal would wind up in a fruitless and infinite
discussion. I propose to therefore not include development into this.
The proposal may also be, of course, declined - especially if you prefer to remain small
for the time being. But that, just like the alternative of allowing such help, should be a
clear decision.
II. Organisation
Should the authorisation idea not be discussible or decidable at the time being, i.e. if
there are too many open questions and you can say neither "yes" nor
"no", then I propose alternatively to discuss organisation: WHO may decide WHAT
under what circumstances and with what effect; and especially, what is to be done if
people dissent. - Because the above is not a big deal, and if you cannot decide on the
above, then chances are that you may wish to streamline your decision-making process.
A few points to consider:
- Is it a more "democratic" system (broader consent, but sluggish and often
without clear direction) or a more "dictatorial" system (faster and clearer
decisions, but maybe at times against majoritary sentiments; the dictators may rotate,
e.g. you are always dictator for e.g. one calendar month, then comes the next person -
maybe you apply the dictatorial principle only for the everyday stuff, while big stuff
needs common approval - which is not unlike to how a government or a company works);
- What is needed to meet what decisions (e.g., BIG decisions, as such involving entering
into legally binding agreements with other entities in the name of ReactOS will need more
thorough consideration than inviting to a pizza& coke event to promote ReactOS; you
may set up rules on quorums and majorities);
- What means shall be there to perform tasks - and yes, the money question will come up
here. (Even the pizza& coke event needs some money.) You could say, up to 5% of some
certain fonds (to be filled by donations) may be used by ... for the purposes of ... - You
could also say, the person in charge of ... may do with his OWN money whatever he likes,
as long as he does not ... (please fill in as considered proper).
These are just my humble proposals and it is up to you to decide on whether and how they
might be implemented or further explored. If you have any ideas to improve or change them,
please do not hesitate to comment accordingly.
Kind regards,
Aeneas
_______________________________________________
Ros-general mailing list
Ros-general(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general