frederik at remote.org
Tue Aug 4 07:54:29 UTC 2009
Gervase Markham wrote:
> True, but (and maybe you agree) there is sometimes a need for a
> deadlock-breaker. The "reluctant governance" model, if you like.
Much of what Nick has recently written on the Wiki sounds more like
"eager governance" than "reluctant governance" if you ask me ;-)
detailed timeline about what people are to be hired when...
> Try very hard to help people come to consensus but if they can't, and a
> decision needs to be taken, then it's the people you elected who get to
> break the deadlock and pick one path or the other.
I guess one has to distinguish between Foundation and community here.
For the Foundation, there might arise situations where "a decision needs
to be taken" (especially when outside parties are involved, e.g. you are
issued a writ and need to respond; an opportunity for funding is about
to expire, etc.), and the decision then picks the path the Foundation is
going to pursue.
For the community, things tend to be more relaxed; if decisions are not
taken, chances are that time is simply not yet right, and it will all
work out in due course.
More information about the osmf-talk