Project Governance

[Jeff Mitchell]

On Sunday 24 February 2008, Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Greg Meyer <greg at gkmeyer.com> wrote:
> > I have attached a pdf because the spam filter on the list is blocking
> > this post, probably because it thinks I am trying one of those Nigerian
> > scams.  I guess you aren't allowed to send legitimate emails talking
> > about money anymore.  So I apologize in advance for sending a pdf, but
> > plain text didn't work.
> >  --
> >  Greg/
>
> Thanks for your work, these look like good by-laws for us.
>
> Looks like we should probably find a goal for the Amarok Project.
> Something along the lines of "fostering the spread and development of
> Amarok via promotion, development conferences and providing the tools
> needed for collaboration and development."
>
> Also maybe a formal process for the board to appoint someone to be the
> person overseeing conference expenses on-the-ground. "Conference
> treasurer", like the role I played at akademy 2007. Either this could
> be part of the by-laws or maybe just some more generic way for the
> board to set something like that up. I'm pretty ignorant on this sort
> of thing. :)

Greg--

Thanks for the work, too.  I have one typo to point out, and one question.

Typo:  "must authorize shall authorize"

Question:  Is there a reason to select an Advisory Board of three people by 
vote instead of something like, active members of the project that have been 
members at least X term with "active" defined some way.  Similar to the 
Eligibility to Vote, but more strict, with longer activity required.

My reasoning is that we've tended so far to like to do things by ad-hoc group 
vote, which is a system I believe many like.  Is there a reason to pick one 
system over the other?

--Jeff