charter: My comments

[Mike Prince]

On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, Andy Thornton wrote:

> I am not sure that the current charter takes into account the 
> interdependance of the projects.  We are aiming to make a complete 
> *system* not just a set of independant projects.  Perhaps a mechanism is 
> required so that projects towards the left of a path (ie those that 
> depend on the sub-projects to their right) can more easliy require things 
> of their sub-projects.  

In my original charter I had all these rules about sub-projects cannot 
make design decisions that would contradict higher projects, etc.  I left 
that up to you guys to suggest how to amend our charter.

Also, I left the rules open to create root projects that are independent 
of other root projects on purpose.  If some faction decides the way the 
majority is going about things is all wrong, I'd rather them work next to 
us by creating a similar root project, than totally jump ship and work 
independently.

> I have been studying software engineering group organisation as part of my
> degree at the moment and I think thet we run the risk of democratic
> overload with too many votes and politics and not enough work? 

Again, I welcome everyones input into amending the charter.  Originally 
in order to reduce votes I created the red tape of votes having to be 
approved by a Coordinator, in order to reduce frivolous and half-baked 
ideas from being voted on.  In the end I decided to leave it up to us to 
amend the charter when the time comes and with a solution appropriate to 
the nature of the problem.

> Maybe I am been a little paranoid but I think it is a risk we should 
> consider...

You are not being too paranoid.  I spent all last week trying to make a 
watertight charter, only to gut the thing Saturday night.  We are small 
enough now do deal with all our problems, and by the time we are big the 
charter will have matured also.

Mike