Mailing list style governance model - public edition

[markh]

Earlier today I posted this topic in the Governance category:

Mailing list style governance model?

With the last MAB meeting in May and no new meeting scheduled yet despite some people’s attempts, it seems clear that the “get key people on a call to talk” model of governance isn’t working out so well because - surprise, surprise - it’s hard to find an open time slot that a dozen people spread around the world all have available. While the first MAB was too heavily focused on process, is there room for a more slimmed down version of asychronously focused discussion? Or do people believe the b…

That category is only accessible for people part of the first MAB, and as I already received a direct message about it from someone without post access to that category, I just wanted to open this public thread as a way of giving the wider community a chance to voice their thoughts.

So… thoughts?

[bobray]

+1. It sounds good to me.

[markh]

Have to admit… I was expecting a bit more responses to a MAB-related proposal

[digitalpenguin]

I’m all for this! Sorry I saw the restricted post but not this one.

[lkfranklin]

I’m all for this. The current format felt too much like a secret society.

[markh]

Not much of a secret society if you’ve heard of it

I think the basic idea of the MAB is to have a group of trusted people to discuss and decide on topics for the benefit of the community. An independent, not too large, group from a cross-section of the community to set the direction for the open source project.

It’s definitely an easier thing to come up with than to actually have working effectively, so there have been a few different attempts with their own rules and people.