Hey, I would like to propose that we cut the gordian knot.

[Ware, Ryan R]

I would have to say that given what I've seen, I encourage this  
approach unless the current portmgr team wants to stand up immediately  
and say they can commit to the short-term time needed to defining and  
ratifying a voting process.  If that is not something they can commit  
to, then I would suggest that given acceptance of the individuals  
noted below (or some subset of them likely no less then three  
individuals in size), that their first task is to determine what the  
voting process will be in the future.

I would also strongly support a time limit on the terms so that the  
community has some method to impact how the project is being governed  
as well as giving members of the portmgr team a method of moving on if  
they can no longer commit their time and energy.

Ryan

On Oct 8, 2008, at 5:55 AM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_knot)
>
> Having just read jmpp's request for "a bit more time" to sort out a  
> voting process, I must confess to feeling more trepidation than  
> assurance.  To be completely fair, he does note several times that  
> he and the rest of the moribund portmgr team would like to move  
> quickly, but given the degree to which that group has also  
> demonstrated itself to be overworked and less than involved in the  
> day to day affairs of MacPorts, anything which delays a solution  
> also runs the risk of blunting some of the current enthusiasm should  
> said "process" end up dragging out longer than anticipated (which,  
> as experience amply suggests, it invariably does) and I honestly  
> don't think we can afford that at this late stage.
>
> I would therefore like to suggest that we simply ratify the  
> following list rather than dragging out a lengthy "voting" process  
> for a set of positions which, from a certain angle, might even be  
> viewed as largely ceremonial since there is no real "power" afforded  
> by membership in the portmgr team.   Volunteers will always choose  
> to follow (or not) such a group on the basis of the credibility of  
> its individual members rather than any fancy paper hats they may be  
> wearing, and the sooner we simply slam those hats on some credible  
> heads and say "Thank you!  Get started!", the sooner we can all get  
> back to discussing the real question of how to get to where we need  
> to go next.
>
> As a courtesy to the outgoing portmgr team, I would also be  
> perfectly happy to see them be the official "ratifiers" of this new  
> team, assuming it passes their sniff test and they're also willing  
> to do so in the next day or two, otherwise I would be just as happy  
> with a statement along the lines of "if there are no significant,  
> well-argued objections in the next 72 hours, they're it!  Quick,  
> before they change their minds!" :-)
>
> Portmgr (subject to individual acceptance, of course - we still  
> haven't heard from two of the four):
> Ryan Schmidt
> Bryan Blackburn
> Rainer Mueller
> Joshua Root
> [Note:  Any subset of the above would also be acceptable - 4 is not  
> some magic minimum number, for all the reasons I've already outlined]
>
> Release engineering team:
> Ryan Schmidt (interim or longer, if he wants it)
> Julio Biason
>
> I'm really not trying to undercut anyone here, least of all jmpp,  
> but seriously folks - we've been suffering from a leadership/ 
> directional vacuum for quite some time now and I don't think we need  
> to bog down the only solution to be offered in quite some time by  
> getting all constitutional about it or saying "hey, wait, let's all  
> think about this for awhile and engage in lengthy discussion!"     
> That might have been a good plan of action about a year ago, and I  
> would be also more than happy to see the "new portmgr" establish a  
> framework for elections and term limits and all the other checks and  
> balances that they might wish to create for future generations, but  
> what we need right now is an immediate "interim government" and some  
> long overdue action on the release engineering front.
>
> Any objections?
>
> - Jordan
>
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20081009/bd38c336/attachment.html