Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
Nice idea, and very well written doc. I can't help thinking that it might promote excess and undesirable bureaucracy though, unless quite carefully scoped. Anecdotally, the most common failure modes of oss projects appear to center around a shortage of suitably skilled contributors to competently plan, design, build and document commonly required functionality. That is in turn typically caused by lack of willingness by companies to hire, pay and otherwise support said suitably skilled contributors (specifically engineers/coders and project co-ordinator/managers). Assuming that the above assertions are true, presumably we want to incentivize companies and individuals to fill the above gaps (i.e. fund competent engineers and project managers) , rather than form committees to decide what should hypothetically be done by the aforementioned missing people? Alternatively stated, should the companies who find and pay the people needed to build what's required, not get to strongly influence what's built? If such competent contributions are being unreasonably blocked, I agree that a good escalation path is needed. Ultimately I think this should end up at well-constitued SIGS and the TOC, but a more focussed Steering Committee per project might we'll make sense, in some cases. But perhaps its purpose should be squarely focussed on ensuring that real and legitimate contributions are not unreasonably blocked. That's all. Q On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 14:50 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Hi all |
|
|