On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've been thinking about this, and some of the issues are imho too detailed and formalized - I am not sure if we should pull it that far.
Can you be more specific in comments on that page?
I think it would be helpful to put this forward at the internal mailing list and see some responses there?
Good idea.
I do not think that the audit committee would be the right group to conduct this. I am very much in favor of a peers evaluation (as we discussed before) because that gives less stress, and more understanding. This should also make it look less hostile. This could be part of Chapcom New Style (if re-arranged into a two tier committee for example) or a totally new thing - that is secondary.
We can describe it as a totally new thing, and figure out whether it works as a subcommittee of an existing group later. Language and wording should make it clear that this group would play a supporting role (just as the WMF audit committee supports the WMF).
SJ