How do we wish to form a "steering group" ?

sean · Joined: 24 Jun 2004 Posts: 609 Location: Bay Area, CA

Works for me.

kris · Joined: 27 Mar 2004 Posts: 1494 Location: South Pacific

larsivi · Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:26 am Post subject:

I agree with the thoughts of Kris and Deja Augustine above. (Sorry for not being more elaborate, I'm short of time due to moving to a bigger house.)

larsivi · Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:23 am Post subject:

What happened? Where did the momentum go? Discussions on features and directions are going on in other threads, but how should the work be organized? Discussions are good, but we have no framework to place the ideas. Storing information like this in a forum don't make it easy to read.

Using the wiki seems to work for many such discussions, and could also work for us. Our problem is that the project wasn't initiated by one person, but rather many people that were discontented with Phobos. This leads to noone stepping forward and taking charge (at least not explicitly), something that the project needs.

A voting mechanism were all 'members' can vote on what to create or include is a good idea, but I think a 'government' is needed to implement the voting results, in addition to possibly set up the votes in the first place. Before a government, that is, steering group, starts, strict directions for their operation should be established, so that they won't be able to make a coup and ruin everything, neither be a brake on necessary evolution of the library (especially the fixing of bugs).

I will start a thread about the responsibilities for such a group, as I firmly believe we won't be able to make a powerful and great Phoenix without it.

jcc7 · Joined: 22 Feb 2004 Posts: 657 Location: Muskogee, OK, USA

larsivi · Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:44 am Post subject: Re: Wiki page

larsivi · Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:39 pm Post subject:

The nomination process is now on, but we've yet to decide how the group should look. IMO, it should start out with 4 members, two selected for one year, two selected for two years. (Later elections will then elect two for two years each year. This will secure some continuation in case members quit after their term.) After the group is selected, they should select one of them as a leader with double vote. Thus a voting deadlock can be avoided. As the D community grow, it might be wise to increase the group to 6 or 8 members.

I also think Walter should have vetoing rights (if he has good arguments Smile

.)

As for how the decision process should go, I think that when a new feature request or similar comes up, discussions are opened (in some kind of official way). After 3 weeks of discussions (both about the feature itself, and the alternatives to vote over), a vote should be presented. The vote should be open for 2 weeks, at which point the winning choice can be implemented/included by the DSLG. The DSLG should choose which features to vote over (here is their real power) and should also be able to make suggestions over which alternative they think is the best, and try to give advice on alternatives that might break compatibility, etc.

The voters should be identified members of the D community. (maybe the Boost way can come into play here?)