BlackBox Framework Center

As an addition to the post http://forum.blackboxframework.org/view ... p=142#p142.

At the first stage we need a chairman to gain some discipline. The (temporary first stage) chairman duty is:
(0) to be sure what any center member known about the vote (at least about important questions);
(1) to start the voting thread after a prior discussion;
(2) to inspect "any center member wrote his vote", finish the voting, count.

Propose Rene.

If Rene is ready to do this work, I agree with yours candidate.

Hm. Some of those duties I fulfilled in the past, without having authority of an office.

Is it really helpful to formalize this role now? As what i did so far did not decide what the group actually did but only supported that each member knew what's up, I enjoyed doing this as "part of the group", and I'm willing to carry on with this.

If the group thinks that a formal role for this is needed, and if the group believes I'm the one who should do this, I will accept the role officially, too. But are we sure there is enough added benefit from formalizing this?

I see only one point that should only be done by someone authorized by the group to do it:

*) start the voting thread

Pro: If each member of the group can start a vote whenever he feels like it, then we might have an inflation of votes without meaning or without prior discussion. So, it is good to formalize this.

Contra: On the other hand, this one member could stall all initiatives by exercising his right to not start a voting thread. And since removing that person from the office would likely take a vote, too, this could become a problem.

Anyhow, since OberonCore brought up my name in this connection, I think that this should be my only post in this thread, though I think there should be more discussion before we put it up for a vote .

Yes, I'm ready to assist the group in this, if that's what the group wants, but I'd suggest we put further thought in this, before we formalize too much.

As Ivan doesn't want to accept that discussions have to come first and shoots out votes without there being any discussion - contrary to expressed wishes by several center members - , I now understand the immidiate need for someone to take the responsibility concerning votes.

I therefore fully support OberonCore's proposal.

ReneK wrote:As Ivan doesn't want to accept that discussions have to come first and shoots out votes without there being any discussion - contrary to expressed wishes by several center members - , I now understand the immidiate need for someone to take the responsibility concerning votes.

I therefore fully support OberonCore's proposal.

Sorry Rene, I will no initiate the voting for you. Prove that you can initiate voting by your self and we will see, if the members are supporting you as the chairmen.

The position of chairman should be on a rotating basis with some fixed time frame (one year?)
I am willing to support Rene as the first chairman.

DGDanforth wrote:The position of chairman should be on a rotating basis with some fixed time frame (one year?)
I am willing to support Rene as the first chairman.

I agree that the chairman should be based on a rotating schema with a fixed time frame.
This is an important organisational issue and there should be a vote about it.

The first question would be if the chairman is rotating or not.
The second question is the time frame, for example 1/2 a year, 1 year, other.
The third question is the chairperson.

- Josef

I would add the question

"Do we want a chairman, whose duty is
(0) to be sure that any center member knows about any vote (at least about important questions);
(1) to start the voting thread after a prior discussion (i.e. makes sure that voting threads are not started without sufficient prior discussion);
(2) to inspect "any center member wrote his vote", finish the voting, count."

as question number 1,

followed by the questions proposed by Josef.

I agree that this should be separate votes, because one might fully wish that a chairman is needed, but this does not mean that one wants that chairman for more than 3 months, while others want a minimum of 1/2 a year of more. And of course, wanting a chairman is a totally different question than deciding who that chairman should be, which of course should be the question considered last.

@Ivan: Once we will have discussed this sufficiently, of course someone, maybe me, will start the voting threads. But first we need to discuss what the questions and optional answers are. Then we can start initiating voting threads.

Do we are ready to choose the chairman?

Sorry for my bad English I have meant

"Are we ready to choose the chairman?"