[Serusers] Re: [Sems] Re: [Semsdev] IMPORTANT: Invitation to discuss the management of iptel.org

[Raphael Coeffic]

Hi!

as for the small number of participant in the SEMS project, i'm convinced that 
we do not need such a board for SEMS by now. Stefan and I are just ruling 
this world and i like strong central administration ;-)

Cheers
Raphael.

On Friday 13 April 2007 16:29, Bogdan Pintea wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
> > I try here to identify open issues not discussed/decided:
> > * Should there be one TB for all iptel.org projects or one TB for each?
>
> I would incline to a No. I'm not yet convinced that all (other) projects
> need it, at least not now.
> Convergence had already been naturally maintained.
>
> > * What should be the criteria for selecting people on the TB (if any)?
>
> Contributor status should be a condition for the candidate-ship. As
> proposed, the group is not a M(anagement)B, but a TB. So, as in-depth
> knowledges as possible should be required.
>
> > * Who have voting rights when we vote on candidates for the TB?
>
> Considering the above note, everybody interested.
> Maybe, related would be (probably obvious, but not to me) how we'd vote?
>
> > * What should be the term for a TB member?
>
> Would it be a per member or per board term? (If one member leaves, the
> one to take his place stays in for how much longer?).
>
> I would propose a _first_ 1 year limit. This way we could see how/if it
> works.
>
> Also, what would this number be? 3 or 5 (considering the tie resolution
> solution already proposed and the "small" suggestion)?
>
> I'd like 5, for some fresh air. ;-)
>
> > * Should this TB handle any issues beyond development? (ex. website
> > content, iptel.org in the wider SIP context, relationship with other
> > projects, packaging, longer-term positioning of projects, longer-term
> > development goals, and so on)
>
> Not, if TB.
> I bet a lot of skilled folks don't have a clue about websites ratings or
> don't want to know what libs can be used on whatever distribution/OS.)
>
> > * If not, do we need another group that could handle such things?
>
> No. IMO, the projects needs (back?) a larger community, not who should
> manage this community. To me it seems things are moving slow but in a
> good direction, as they are.
>
>
> <troll'ish>
> Probably one could propose a list of goals, but without the contributors
> to provide them they'll stay in for nothing.
> Thus, I would already provide the first goal criteria: make it sexy for
> developers (users are necessary but not enough); if some guy wants to do
> outrageous things with SER (like, say, IMS :)), or OO-like cfg or colors
> in logs or whatever), let him do that, provided the robustness is kept.
> Its much more likely to get good quality code if one has were to choose
> from; if code is lousy, it'll get filtered out in time.
>
> The other way, as it seems, is to go split ways (the first two larger
> ones are named starting with "Open" ...), and having code moved back and
> forth is just ridiculous (besides not durable).
> </troll'ish>
>
>
> Regards,

-- 
Dipl. Inf. Raphael Coeffic

iptelorg GmbH
Am Borsigturm 11
13507 Berlin
Germany

rco at iptel.org
www.iptelorg.com

T +49-30-3251-3218
F +49-30-6908-8248