-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Turvey:
I suggest all decision making is done on the wiki.
i don't think this is feasible. any time you have several interested people in the same place (such as IRC, or a real-life meeting), they're going to start talking about things, and perhaps even reach a decision among themselves. you can't stop that unless you ban people talking on IRC ;-)
of course, since not even can or wants to be on IRC, it's important that anything notable that happens there goes on the wiki, along with an explanation of the reasons for it. this means everyone else can see what's happening, and participate, and if necessary, object to things they don't like. i think this is something we've not been doing enough of so far (judging by the recent mails on this list, anyway).
(i'm not saying we should do everything on IRC then report it on the wiki; rather that we should be flexible in where things are done, as long as people who aren't there still have just as much input.)
this will be especially important once we have selected a board and starting moving towards creating the organisation; the ability to communicate in real-time is invaluable.
All past decisions need to be put up there - with explanations and justifications so they are open to challenge. All decisions should be affirmatively made and agreed.
i think it's reasonable to assume that if someone disagrees with what's on the wiki now, they would have said so. rehashing past discussions with a poll/vote/whatever will just waste time and reduce momentum.
but yes, there could be more explanation there of why things were done a certain way.
- river.