Compartmental tasks: comments.

[Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net>]

All:

I tend to get long winded, so I'm going to try and make this short and
to the point.  Don't take it as ubruptness.  Hell, I'll probably get
long winded again anyway.

Seg: ---------------------

About all I have to say here is that the data should be poled from
*non-linux users*.  If we try to base anything on the Linux community we
are going to get the same endless contradictions we find in the mailing
lists and news groups.

I suggest on means of getting this info is to go into the various
*other* OS news groups and maybe pretend to be a fellow OS user thinking
of using Linux and ask them what they think of the idea and why.  Sift
through the ashes left from the flames and you'll find the problems they
see in Linux.

Alternately ask, as a fellow OS user, what the want to see in that OS
and not mention Linux at all.  If we can put those two together we'll be
ahead of the game.

This could be news groups or chat rooms.  Chat would be the quickest
obviously.

The rest: ----------------------

I'm going to comment on the rest as a whole since I really only see a
couple of things and they are intertwined in all of them.  Actually
intertwined is *the* problem I see.

It appears to me that there has been deligation of authority to each
compartment, which is good.  But there is a problem when one team is
gearing up for using, say, QT for the apps (*EXAMPLE only*) and another
team is gearing up to use Tk/tcl for apps.

I forget which group it was, but a few days ago I saw a post by a leader
stating that they were going to build around a specific toolkit (I
beleive it was the install group) other than GTK to base the
installation on.  I replied to the post telling them that the decision
had been made by the sysarch's to use GTK as the toolkit, at least at
this point.  I never got a response so I don't know if they are still
planning to use a different toolkit than we are building around.

So, you see the problem.  The decisions made by the compartment leaders
should be reviewed by the leadership team as a whole and voted on with
the sysarch's holding veto power since it's ultimately their project.

I think there should be a specific time period in which we could hold a
board meeting, of sorts, in a private chat room, a leaders email
rebuttle, and finally a private vote to the sysarch's.

In this way the entire project will remain in sync with eachother and
having a specific deadline for arguments will insure there aren't any
serious delays.

To clarify the meetings in chat; they would, ofcourse, only be required
if there is significantly opposing points on the topic in question.  If
there apears to be a stalemate on a topic the sysarch's should make the
final decision.

I would say that, under normal circumstances, a time limit of 3 days
should be inforced to produlce facts that may sway the majorities point
of view.  There may come a time when a topic is considered to be serious
enough to extend that period, but I should think that 3 days is plenty. 
Ofcourse even this should be put to a vote =)

Wel, I did it again.

-- 
Out here,

Rick Jones
rickya@siservices.net
===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===