[OOTB-hive] [GOV] Thoughts

Jeff Potts jeffpotts01 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 23 00:23:22 BST 2014

Remember that votes are not casual events to be happened upon nor are they typically broader than the committee. Therefore 48 hours should be plenty because the people voting will be actively engaged in the debate prior to the vote.

48 hours is what Apache uses so that's why I suggested it.

In any case, I am up for whatever the group decides. We could put it to a vote for the recursive beauty of it. :)


> On Aug 22, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Martin Cosgrave <martin at ocretail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/08/14 20:22, Richard Esplin wrote:
>> I read most of the list, and skimmed the rest. Exciting times!
>> I had a few thoughts that I wanted to share. Rather than lots of short emails,
>> I'll group them together.
>> * Voting Window: Jeff proposed a 48 hour voting window. I think that is too
>> short. It is too easy to go 2 days without checking the mailing list. I
>> propose a 3 day window, maybe 4.
> I agree with this, personally it's easy to miss a few days, I would go with a 7 day window.
>> * Alfresco Employees Voting: I think Alfresco employees should be allowed to
>> vote. Each is participating for his or her own reasons, and should be able to
>> help determine the direction of the Order.
> I really like the idea of people from Engineering having input into our direction but I really worry about the tendency to self-censor when you work for a company and you comment (or vote) about it publicly.
> It would also be quite easy for Alfresco to fill The Order with members who had a vote and then at a crucial moment, coerce all those members to vote in the company's interest.
> In my opinion the separation between Alfresco employees and non employees should remain.
>> * Alfresco Certified Partners Voting: I think employees of Alfresco Certified
>> Partners should be allowed to vote and participate as any other member of the
>> Order. It is in the Order's best interests to encourage full participation
>> from as many certified partners as possible.
> I see no problem with employees of partners having a vote. If we as an organisation detected any collusion in voting, either in favour of the partner, or in favour of Alfresco, I think the board would need to investigate it and possibly take steps to remove the offending parties from the organisation.
>> * Closed Source Add-ons: I dislike the idea of promoting closed source add-ons
>> to Community Edition. Using a closed source license makes it harder to
>> collaborate as a community. I would rather leave that to the official Alfresco
>> Channel, or to each Order member in their paid employment. Full disclosure: I
>> am regularly accused of being a free/libre software zealot.
> +1 from me. I think we should exclude them. We might even want to pick a specific licence.
>> * Names: Alfresco's trademark guidelines are out of date, and need to be
>> clarified for community use. However, regardless of Alfresco's official policy, I
>> think it is best to keep official OOTB names distinct from Alfresco. The Order
>> can use subtitles like "Order of the Bee: An Alfresco Professional
>> Organization" to clarify the relationship. Then it can evolve as the Order
>> does. And for the record, I vote for the distribution being called
>> "Honeycomb".
> "Order Of The Bee: Buzzing about Alfresco"
> I quite like "Honeycomb", too.
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> OOTB-hive mailing list
> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive

More information about the OOTB-hive mailing list