Board/Project Governance

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 09/06/2013 03:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 01:17:18PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> Today since times have changed I'm at an different place than what
>> you propose here since I personally have reach the conclusion since
>> no matter how and which angle I look at it, that ring/product
>> proposal in it's current form is not fixing anything, it's not
>> pioneering, it's not revolutionary, it's not "first" anything thus
>> is not representative solution or direction for the project to take
>> or the four foundation we have.
> I'm very interested in seeing concrete, positive proposals for addressing
> the nebulous negatives you've put forth here.

I've already mentioned how I think we should proceed forward and there 
is absolutely nothing vague about the negatives that I have been 
referring to with the biggest one being the so called "default product" 
and certainly not as vague on how and what was actually collected to 
come to the conclusion of those three product target groups nor as vague 
as where the people that are actually going to be doing all the 
necessary work to implement your proposal is coming from. ( and that 
question was never answered at flock )

If the plan is to run to RH and have it provide the necessary man power 
to implement this then the manager(s) there must have already realized 
by now that they might have to increase that manpower by two additional 
individuals to the one that would be directly working on it to keep the 
balance in the sub-communities.

What I have mentioned here on this thread as the way forward does not 
require increase in manpower quite the opposed it should result in 
actually less load on existing infrastructure communities...

JBG