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

Greetings, Greger V. Teigre wrote: 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. 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. Considering the above note, everybody interested. Maybe, related would be (probably obvious, but not to me) how we'd vote? 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. ;-) 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.) 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,