Bruce Perens rejected from license-proliferation committee.

[Kevin Bedell]

Quoting Robin 'Roblimo' Miller <robin at roblimo.com>:

>
> >
> > Normally the way to ensure everyone ends up happy is to chose people
> > using an
> > open and transparent process, after a call for nominations, and open
> > discussion. That doesn't mean "vote by mailing list", that means that
> > whatever process is followed should be open and transparent.
>
> And then the committee's reccomendations should be subject to review by
> the Peanut Gallery (us), and our comments should be taken into account
> before a final decision is made.
>

There's no reason that nominations for committees shouldn't be proposed and
voted on using public mailing lists.

This approach has the advantages of 1) minimizing the risk of people questioning
the decision making criteria (as is happening here), and 2) keeping decisions
makers honest since they know their decisions are all going to be public and
documented on the mailing lists.

The Apache Software Foundation has had great success using this model. Open and
public decision making is one of the cornerstones of their process and (I
believe) one of the reasons why their 'meritocracy' model works so well.

Here's a pointer to a summary of how the process works:

  http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management

Anyone give me a "+1" on this?

-kevin

--
Kevin Bedell
Editor in Chief, Linux Journal
http://www.linuxjournal.com