Hi Stippi, Stephan Assmus wrote:
I agree with you, Jorge, but you cannot make no distinction between NPO and the rest of the project, since people who have stepped up to run the NPO may be held personally responsible. For this reason only, they should have veto power on certain things. However, the line should be as much invisible as possible. The vast majority of decisions should be community driven, at least if people care at all. Only when it comes to personal liability of the NPO, they should be able to veto. I think this is quite reasonable.
Obviously, nobody would ever want to expose the BOD members to legal problems. If the BOD ever identifies something that could become a liability, then they are naturally in all their rights and it would be their responsibility to do whatever is needed to avoid or rectify the situation.
But to say that non-BOD contributors are not stakeholders and that they should not have a say in how their contributions are handled is quite a stretch and even far from reality. This is not a matter of interpretation or opinion, but a fact that anyone can corroborate by just looking at the dynamics of the project.
In this specific situation it's about protecting the brand. It's actually an item on the bullet list of what the NPO is for. However I don't believe it was meant quite in this way. There is no personal risk involved here for any BOD member, so I don't see why shaping a HUG strategy can't be a community driven discussion.
Thank you for understanding. :) Cheers, -- Jorge/aka Koki Website: http://haikuzone.net RSS: http://haikuzone.net/rss.xml
