[squeak-dev] Mondrian help

> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>
>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members
>> this
>> year.
>>
>> Any is against ? Why ?
>
> Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings
> across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can
> see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't
> fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the
> last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often
> this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous
> meeting all over again.  Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people
> involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
>
> I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two
> members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest
> number one can reasonably manage that way.
>
> If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for
> five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of
> making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate
> of the board is what it's been in the past.
>
> So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
>

> 2009/2/20 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>>
>>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
>>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>>
>>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members
>>> this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Any is against ? Why ?
>>
>> Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings
>> across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can
>> see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't
>> fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the
>> last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often
>> this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous
>> meeting all over again.  Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people
>> involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
>>
>> I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two
>> members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest
>> number one can reasonably manage that way.
>>
>> If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for
>> five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of
>> making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate
>> of the board is what it's been in the past.
>>
>> So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
>>
>
> +1
> i don't see why Leadership team should grow in numbers.
> Speaking about lack of manpower, i'd prefer to see more people in
> other teams, who actually do the job.
> Looking at current Leadership team, i can say, that we spent a little
> attention on this.
> I think that recruiting people to the teams, inspiring people to join,
> should be one of the primary function of Leadership.
> Without such people, Leadership is just a king without kingdom. And
> what is the point in growing bureacracy then, when there is no one
> left who want to work with it?
>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>

> On 20.02.2009, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> Only I don't like the word Leaderships.
>
> Me neither. "Board" has the longer tradition here, it's just not the
> "board of directors" anymore, which only applied when we were trying to
> create a separate Squeak Foundation.
>
> Idea: I liked the term "Sugar Labs Oversight Board", and not only
> because of its acronym. Does anybody have a backronym for "SQUIBs"? ;)

> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>
>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman  
>> Simone and
>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>
>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more  
>> members this
>> year.
>>
>> Any is against ? Why ?
>
>
> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If  
> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be  
> elected even if you don't vote for them.

>
> On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone  
>>> and
>>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>>
>>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members  
>>> this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Any is against ? Why ?
>>
>>
>> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If  
>> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected  
>> even if you don't vote for them.
>
> No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses  
> against that is not elected.

> On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
>>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>>
>>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more
>>> members this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Any is against ? Why ?
>>
>>
>> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If
>> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be
>> elected even if you don't vote for them.
>
> No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses
> against that is not elected.