Project leader and core developer is NOT a one man job, and anyone who has ever been in that position will tell you so.

As I said before, delagation is the key part of success in any business or project.

Mamba wrote:

Look, we had Skalpa and Herko in separate positions, and we know the result of it. It didn't work.

Let's not try to make it in stone one way or the other. There are success stories on both sides of the spectrum, as well as failures. In the end, it all comes to the person, and the people who support him. If he gets a good Council doing what they supposed to do, then he'll have less project management work.

MadFish wrote:
The important thing is that for the first time, we have a process underway that will allow community members to have a say in how the project will be run in future.

I think it is also quite encouraging that so far everyone is talking about a new management structure where leaders are elected, and where management of the project will be by groups of people (as is the case in nearly all modern organizations), rather than by individuals. That's a pretty big step forward.

There are a lot of different views about how the project should be run and that's fine. The main thing is that we need to find a way that we can have an orderly discussion about it. That's the goal of the OP and one of the key jobs for this proposal drafting committee.

I agree that it will not be easy but at least we have a way forward. I think it will work if there is a sincere and transparent attempt for community engagement, because bottom line is that people do want to see the project succeed.

If we don't try, failure is guaranteed. So, lets give it a shot, there's a lot to gain and nothing to lose.

It is clear that DJ does not wish to entertain a project manager as we the communtity have asked for. It is clear that the pruposed structure that the community differs from the one that DJ wishes to put in place.

It is also clear that The council do not have the full mandate to carry out that it states due to a direct conflict with another body with Xoops, mainly the foundation.

How prospective members are selected, is up to the members themselves. They can -if they want- organize an election to get candidates, and can even decide prior to this that the elected candidate(s) will become members of the Board, but this is not standard practice.

However, this can be solved by replacing 'selected by' with 'recommended by' the Steering Committee (what I called the Council in my proposal). The Foundation can add regulations about this recommendation, to make sure it happens properly, but legally only the seated directors can select new members of the board.
And if the Steering Committee and community allows me to, I'd like to remain as Chairperson of the Foundation for a longer period. Both for practical reasons, and because I'd enjoy that. Since the Foundation and Steering Committee have clearly defined roles (the STeering Committee effectively managing the project, the Foundation managing the assets), I think that fits with the current situation.
But, only if you agree.

XOOPS Project Leader:
The XOOPS Core Development Leader will be the overall Project Leader. In this regard, the Project Leader is an ordinary member of the XOOPS Council.

This goes against everything this community has been asking that the core developer does not do.

Let's look at the history of XOOPS - we had recently Skalpa as Development Leader, and Herko as the Project Leader, but I don't think that we can report great successes from that time, do we?

project leader should NOT be the core dev leader. conflict of interest anybody?

I absolutely agree that the core developer should not be the project leader and actually one of the reasons I like the proposal that Crip put forward. This has never worked before and not going to work in the future.

I don't care if the Core developer is the Project Leader or not. But I don't want to exclude him from being the Project Leader.

Project leader and core developer is NOT a one man job, and anyone who has ever been in that position will tell you so.

In the end, it all comes to the person, and the people who support him. If he gets a good Council doing what they supposed to do, then he'll have less project management work.

The problem with XOOPS is that it has always had a weak leadership (Ono not included in this), with no real vision or leadership skills and that is why this project is in a mess.

everything is up for discussion - including whether there is or isn't a project manager, what they should do and how they should be selected etc. Nothing is set in stone at this stage

The XOOPS Foundation will serve as a treasury and legal support entity for the XOOPS Project. The Foundation will be managed by a Foundation Team directed by the XOOPS Council directly

nice conflict of interest arisen there. the council controls the project? >snip< now the council controls the foundation too?

Something I definitely don't want to see is somebody self-appointing himself to be the Foundation chair

Any and all personal attacks, insinuations, allegations or rumors must cease before convening any new committee, task force, group or council and undertaking any new initiative. Until these conditions are met, there will be no progress.

David Barsamian:
I want to ask you about tinkerers versus overhaulers, reforms - cosmetic improvements and adjustments to the system - versus substantive structural change.

Noam Chomsky:
"Tinkering, to borrow your word, is a preliminary to large-scale change. There can't be large-scale structural change unless a very substantial part of the population is deeply committed to it. It's going to have to come from the organized efforts of a dedicated population. That won't happen, unless people perceive that the reform efforts, the tinkering, are running into barriers that cannot be overcome without institutional change. Then you get pressure for institutional change. But short of that realization, there is no reason why people should take the risks, make the effort, or face the uncertainty and the punishment that is involved in serious change. That's why every serious XOOPSTER is a reformist. If you're a serious XOOPSTER, you don't want a coup. You want changes to come from below, from the organized population. But why should people be willing to undertake what's involved in serious institutional change unless they think that the institutions don't permit them to achieve just and proper goals?"