From peter at xaop.com  Tue Mar  4 07:12:37 2008
From: peter at xaop.com (Peter Vanbroekhoven)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:12:37 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re:  Post-FOSDEM momentum]
Message-ID: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>

And now sent to everyone...
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Peter Vanbroekhoven <peter at xaop.com>
Subject: Re: [Brug-admin] Post-FOSDEM momentum
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:30:15 +0100
Size: 6380
Url: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/brug-admin/attachments/20080304/166231cd/attachment.eml 

From tom at 10to1.be  Tue Mar  4 07:41:28 2008
From: tom at 10to1.be (Tom Klaasen)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:41:28 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
Message-ID: <b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>

All,

Will this be an event for brug-admin only? Maybe we could make it a
brug-talk event... That seems to make more sense to me. Maybe everybody in
the BRUG should then participate in the doodle?

kr,


On 3/4/08, Peter Vanbroekhoven <peter at xaop.com> wrote:
>
> And now sent to everyone...
>
> I've created a poll here:
>
>   http://doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=cywgrxx8my8budwe
>
> I've picked the week of 17 March, but it is easy to add more dates later
> on if that week turns out to be inconvenient.
>
> The next question is where. Anyone have a good idea for a nice place to
> sit, have a drink and talk?
>
> Peter
>
> Nicolas Jacobeus wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm also in favor of most of the ideas proposed by Peter. I
> > particularly like the idea of informal, OpenCoffee-like monthly
> meetings.
> >
> > Let's pick a date in March for an IRL discussion about this...
> > (doodle.ch anyone?)
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> > On 26 Feb 2008, at 12:42, Tom Klaasen wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for the IRL meetings. It's a lot easier to discuss (and dream) if
> >> you can see each other.
> >>
> >> The first meeting could be used to discuss the first 'workshop'...
> >>
> >> kr,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/26/08, *Peter Vanbroekhoven* <peter at xaop.com
> >> <mailto:peter at xaop.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hi all,
> >>
> >>     The devroom at FOSDEM was quite successful, so cheers on that.
> After
> >>     FOSDEM we had 15-20 more subscribers to brug-talk than before
> >>     FOSDEM, so
> >>     some people already took the bait. So all's well. But...
> >>
> >>     It isn't the time to sit still. We should use the momentum we've
> >>     built
> >>     to keep going. But enough motivational talk...
> >>
> >>     First off, there has been a gap of almost 5 months between the
> first
> >>     BRUG meeting and the FOSDEM devroom. I'm probably not alone in
> >>     thinking
> >>     that this is a bit too much. I'm not saying that we should have
> >>     an event
> >>     like FOSDEM every month, but I still think we should meet more
> often.
> >>     The way I see it now, we could discern the following categories
> >>     of meet-ups:
> >>
> >>     * Regular BRUG get-together: a monthly meeting in a cafe or so
> >>     where we
> >>     can talk about Ruby, life, anything we want. No pressure to
> >>     attend each
> >>     time, no pressure on topics, just getting together and socialize.
> >>     This
> >>     should be low overhead, i.e., we pick a date and come who
> >>     can/wants to come.
> >>     * More formal BRUG meetings: these could be anything, from
> >>     hackatons to
> >>     semi-formal presentations. I wouldn't put the pressure on this one
> >>     either, but rather do this when it arises. So if someone feels like
> >>     giving a presentation, we could organize a meeting. If someone
> >>     wants to
> >>     kick off a new project and is looking for a few fellow developers
> to
> >>     help, we could organize a coding session. I'm sure at some point
> >>     we all
> >>     have thought about implementing a small utility, a Ruby lib or a
> >>     Rails
> >>     plugin. These coding sessions are great to kick such a project into
> >>     gear; it's surprising what a few motivated programmer's can put
> >>     together
> >>     in a few hours. It's how Rubygems got started :-)
> >>     * Formal seminars: I was thinking along the lines of some of the
> >>     events
> >>     organized by SAI, i.e.,
> >>     http://www.sai.be/nl/eventdetail.aspx?ev_id=153
> >>     . We could advertise this to companies and such. This could be an
> >>     important vehicle in promoting Ruby in Belgium. Many companies
> >>     see Ruby
> >>     as a hype and are thus hesitant to jump on the bandwagon out of
> >>     fear of
> >>     investing in a fad that will be over before they got back what they
> >>     invested in it. We should convince them that it is worth it. Once
> >>     we get
> >>     going, we could even invite prominent speakers (although then
> >>     we'll need
> >>     to charge for it probably).
> >>     * The big guns: once we get going, we can organize bigger events
> like
> >>     half/one-day conferences. This one is still way off in the
> >>     future, but
> >>     it is something to keep an eye on. We already did this in the form
> of
> >>     FOSDEM, but I was thinking about something stand-alone, something
> we
> >>     advertise to companies.
> >>     * BRUG-admin meetings: although we can have discussions online,
> >>     nothing
> >>     beats a real-life meeting where you can brainstorm on important
> >>     issue/decisions.
> >>
> >>     My feeling tells me that the first and last type of meeting could
> >>     very
> >>     well turn out to end up the same. It's likely to be the hardcore
> >>     group.
> >>     But anyway, it would be nice if we could get these regular meet-ups
> >>     going. Because we don't need any infrastructure for it, we can
> easily
> >>     vary the location.
> >>
> >>     Another important thing is to build a decent website. Currently,
> >>     we have
> >>     some information online, but it's certainly not sufficient.
> >>     Instiki was
> >>     great to quickly get some information online, but it is certainly
> >>     not a
> >>     durable solution. I think we need to brainstorm on what we will
> >>     need to
> >>     build a decent website. I would like to organize a BRUG-admin
> meeting
> >>     for this in 2 or 3 weeks time. And then have the first regular BRUG
> >>     meeting a few weeks after that, just to start going. Sound
> >>     reasonable?
> >>
> >>     Peter
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     Brug-admin mailing list
> >>     Brug-admin at rubyforge.org <mailto:Brug-admin at rubyforge.org>
> >>     http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/brug-admin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom Klaasen
> >> 10to1
> >> +32 475 28 17 62
> >> http://www.10to1.be _______________________________________________
> >> Brug-admin mailing list
> >> Brug-admin at rubyforge.org <mailto:Brug-admin at rubyforge.org>
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/brug-admin
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Brug-admin mailing list
> > Brug-admin at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/brug-admin
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Brug-admin mailing list
> Brug-admin at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/brug-admin
>
>


-- 
Tom Klaasen
10to1
+32 475 28 17 62
http://www.10to1.be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/brug-admin/attachments/20080304/95423b42/attachment.html 

From peter at xaop.com  Tue Mar  4 18:58:15 2008
From: peter at xaop.com (Peter Vanbroekhoven)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:58:15 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>

Tom Klaasen wrote:
> All,
>
> Will this be an event for brug-admin only? Maybe we could make it a
> brug-talk event... That seems to make more sense to me. Maybe
> everybody in the BRUG should then participate in the doodle?
Yes it makes more sense. But instead of going round the issue again,
I'll get straight to the point.

Thing is, I'm a bit unhappy with the admin part of the BRUG at the
moment. The admin part we had at the first meeting was generally
somewhat of a disaster. Many people found that part a real downer. In
the end, we didn't decide much concrete, except to have an admin group.
Problem there was too many voices. My general feeling is that in the
admin group here we have too little voice (note that I'm not saying "too
few voices"). I get the feeling I'm often waiting for a response,
feedback, instead of actually doing something. I'm not getting a strong
decision making vibe from you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining
here. What I want to say is that I am perfectly willing to take these
decisions on my own, get things going instead of waiting, and still run
things by you guys for advice or extra ideas, but then I *have* to know
that you are OK with that. I know I'm the one who started all this, but
that doesn't automatically imbue me with absolute power. I don't want to
unilaterally disband the admin group we've set up, but it does feel a
touch unwieldy at the moment.

So what I am really asking is: can I please please go ahead and get this
show on the road without the overhead of asking and waiting? You get the
right to veto and stuff, and I'll still run decisions and such by you;
we'd still have an admin group, you'd just have to do less :-)

If this is OK with you guys, I'll start by setting up a new poll for a
_general_ BRUG meeting. I'd move it up by one week though, to the end of
March. Next, Benny and I will put together a proposal for a new website
setup, run it by you and get it implemented.

Peter

From peter at vandenabeele.com  Wed Mar  5 03:00:54 2008
From: peter at vandenabeele.com (Peter Vandenabeele)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:00:54 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
Message-ID: <a11b4a7c0803050000s769ad1c9mb14ae4e4c4c52fb8@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Peter Vanbroekhoven <peter at xaop.com> wrote:
> Tom Klaasen wrote:
>  > All,

Sorry I didn't react earlier. I had not seen that this mail is only to the
"brug-admin" group ... (which is a disadvantage of small mailing groups;
for small, semi-closed/semi-confidential mailing groups, I find it more
effective to just mail the few people in To: and Cc: with Reply-All.
Then at least you know who you are talking too and the others feel
more personally addressed; just a side remark).

>  > Will this be an event for brug-admin only? Maybe we could make it a
>  > brug-talk event... That seems to make more sense to me. Maybe
>  > everybody in the BRUG should then participate in the doodle?
>  Yes it makes more sense. But instead of going round the issue again,
>  I'll get straight to the point.
>
>  Thing is, I'm a bit unhappy with the admin part of the BRUG at the
>  moment. The admin part we had at the first meeting was generally
>  somewhat of a disaster. Many people found that part a real downer. In
>  the end, we didn't decide much concrete, except to have an admin group.

I agree it was probably not a very good idea to spend that much time
at the general meeting on admin issues ... which are important, but it
was not the right place and time. Sorry, I probably contributed a
significant fraction of that ...

>  Problem there was too many voices. My general feeling is that in the
>  admin group here we have too little voice (note that I'm not saying "too
>  few voices"). I get the feeling I'm often waiting for a response,
>  feedback, instead of actually doing something. I'm not getting a strong
>  decision making vibe from you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining
>  here. What I want to say is that I am perfectly willing to take these
>  decisions on my own, get things going instead of waiting, and still run
>  things by you guys for advice or extra ideas, but then I *have* to know
>  that you are OK with that. I know I'm the one who started all this, but
>  that doesn't automatically imbue me with absolute power. I don't want to
>  unilaterally disband the admin group we've set up, but it does feel a
>  touch unwieldy at the moment.

One possible solution (IMHO) is that everyone that cares to respond to this
thread stays in the admin group and the persons that are too busy with
other matters are "excused" for now (which could be implemented by
using simple direct mailing to the group that is actively contributing to
admin work). With a few, _known_ people, we can more simply make a
decision (I actually don't known who will be reading this, besides Peter
and Tom).

>  So what I am really asking is: can I please please go ahead and get this
>  show on the road without the overhead of asking and waiting? You get the
>  right to veto and stuff, and I'll still run decisions and such by you;
>  we'd still have an admin group, you'd just have to do less :-)

I hope I gave some ideas now.

Do I understand correctly that your proposal is that:

  "you make a proposal, send it on the brug-admin list and if no one
   seriously complains or finds better alternatives, you can carry on?"

I could agree to that (but maybe I misunderstood).

>  If this is OK with you guys, I'll start by setting up a new poll for a
>  _general_ BRUG meeting. I'd move it up by one week though, to the end of
>  March.

+1

Some further proposals here:

* Organize a general meeting in 3-4 weeks
  * choosing a date (Doodle); using an evening in the week seems logical;
     location near Brussels (which is more or less in the middle of Belgium)
  * defining a program, some ideas:
     * presentation ?
     * open discussion on questions prepared by the general group
       (people post questions to the mailing list or to the admin group
        (they have both options) that will then be used as guidance for
        a discussion ? Could be: "marketing of RoR"; "how to find RoR
        business as a consultant?"; "who will attend conferences?"; ....)
     * asking if people are interested in organizing a small conference
       of our own for september 2008 ?

* have a small admin meeting before it (30 minutes before) ?
* try to handle most other admin stuff over e-mail

>  Next, Benny and I will put together a proposal for a new website
>  setup, run it by you and get it implemented.

+1

HTH,

Peter

From tom at 10to1.be  Wed Mar  5 04:00:13 2008
From: tom at 10to1.be (Tom Klaasen)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:00:13 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
Message-ID: <b97366280803050100j120e23d7q8b995da4e63bdef9@mail.gmail.com>

Peter, Peter,


On 3/5/08, Peter Vanbroekhoven <peter at xaop.com> wrote:
>
> Tom Klaasen wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Will this be an event for brug-admin only? Maybe we could make it a
> > brug-talk event... That seems to make more sense to me. Maybe
> > everybody in the BRUG should then participate in the doodle?
>
> Yes it makes more sense. But instead of going round the issue again,
> I'll get straight to the point.
>
> Thing is, I'm a bit unhappy with the admin part of the BRUG at the
> moment. The admin part we had at the first meeting was generally
> somewhat of a disaster.



Sorry, I wasn't there. I found out about BRUG later.


Many people found that part a real downer. In
> the end, we didn't decide much concrete, except to have an admin group.
> Problem there was too many voices. My general feeling is that in the
> admin group here we have too little voice (note that I'm not saying "too
> few voices"). I get the feeling I'm often waiting for a response,
> feedback, instead of actually doing something. I'm not getting a strong
> decision making vibe from you.


You're right, that's what makes committees such a PITA. Everybody listens to
everybody, but it's hard to make decisions.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining
> here. What I want to say is that I am perfectly willing to take these
> decisions on my own, get things going instead of waiting, and still run
> things by you guys for advice or extra ideas, but then I *have* to know
> that you are OK with that. I know I'm the one who started all this, but
> that doesn't automatically imbue me with absolute power. I don't want to
> unilaterally disband the admin group we've set up, but it does feel a
> touch unwieldy at the moment.



My experience with volunteer-efforts is that a 'benevolent dictator' is
often needed, exactly to circumvent the committee-feeling. I'm willing to
support you as that benevolent dictator, since you took the initiative for
the BRUG.


So what I am really asking is: can I please please go ahead and get this
> show on the road without the overhead of asking and waiting? You get the
> right to veto and stuff, and I'll still run decisions and such by you;
> we'd still have an admin group, you'd just have to do less :-)



If we take the Apache model as an example, this decision-making can become
quicker: make a proposition, ask for a vote, and the response can be as
simple as '+1'. Veto's are '-1', and are expected to be explained.
Contrary to the Apache model, I wouldn't wait until x% of the members have
voted, but assume that no response means '0', or 'no opinion'.


If this is OK with you guys, I'll start by setting up a new poll for a
> _general_ BRUG meeting. I'd move it up by one week though, to the end of
> March. Next, Benny and I will put together a proposal for a new website
> setup, run it by you and get it implemented.



+1


Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Brug-admin mailing list
> Brug-admin at rubyforge.org
>
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/brug-admin
>



-- 
Tom Klaasen
10to1
+32 475 28 17 62
http://www.10to1.be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/brug-admin/attachments/20080305/0d5fce79/attachment.html 

From peter at xaop.com  Wed Mar  5 05:04:40 2008
From: peter at xaop.com (Peter Vanbroekhoven)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:04:40 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <b97366280803050100j120e23d7q8b995da4e63bdef9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>	
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>	
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803050100j120e23d7q8b995da4e63bdef9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47CE7038.4080507@xaop.com>

Tom Klaasen wrote:
> My experience with volunteer-efforts is that a 'benevolent dictator' is
> often needed, exactly to circumvent the committee-feeling.

That phrase has been spooking through my head for a while now. I have
been thinking the same thing.

I am willing to do most or all of the 'field work', but I have to know
what I'm working for.

We should rethink the admin structure a bit. I would keep the admin list
because I want the admin group to be an open thing. But we can have a
core group of a few people, 3 or 5 (preferably an odd number). This core
group wouldn't have a list and mail each other directly.

Basically, for simple things like "general BRUG meeting last week of
March?", the core group decides. They get 24 hours to vote (+1 or -1)
and someone (our benevolent dictator if you will) can break ties if needed.

For more elaborate proposals, such as the structure of the website, I
suggest the proposal is submitted to the general admin list who get 48
hours to comment, add/remove ideas, etc. If it turns out the proposal
was way off, we lather rinse repeat. The discussion is then summarized
by the submitter of the proposal, proposal is adapted where necessary,
and the proposal is put up for vote with the core admin people per the
above procedure. (I suggest the courtesy of not voting against unless
you have voiced your concerns before.)

So more or less this is a new procedure to make decisions faster, and we
have one person who takes the necessary decisions in case the procedure
stalls. If it doesn't work, we can still revise it later on, but the way
it is now, it's hard to get things done; it feels like the Belgian
governments, and we don't want to be _that_ Belgian.

Peter

From tom at 10to1.be  Wed Mar  5 05:24:18 2008
From: tom at 10to1.be (Tom Klaasen)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:24:18 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <47CE7038.4080507@xaop.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>	
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>	
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803050100j120e23d7q8b995da4e63bdef9@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CE7038.4080507@xaop.com>
Message-ID: <57FA70E5-8CBF-45B2-87FA-7783EEA6744E@10to1.be>

+1

But may I suggest to continue using the admin mailing list to keep the  
discussions in the open? There's no need for everybody to respond, but  
the core group shouldn't be whispering in a corner, either.

When a general vote is needed, it can be mentioned in the subject of  
the mail with [VOTE].

That certain people will need to reorganize the rules of their mailbox  
for this to work, that's their concern :-P


Tom Klaasen

10to1
http://www.10to1.be
+32 475 28 17 62




On 5-mrt-08, at 11:04, Peter Vanbroekhoven wrote:

> Tom Klaasen wrote:
>> My experience with volunteer-efforts is that a 'benevolent  
>> dictator' is
>> often needed, exactly to circumvent the committee-feeling.
>
> That phrase has been spooking through my head for a while now. I have
> been thinking the same thing.
>
> I am willing to do most or all of the 'field work', but I have to know
> what I'm working for.
>
> We should rethink the admin structure a bit. I would keep the admin  
> list
> because I want the admin group to be an open thing. But we can have a
> core group of a few people, 3 or 5 (preferably an odd number). This  
> core
> group wouldn't have a list and mail each other directly.
>
> Basically, for simple things like "general BRUG meeting last week of
> March?", the core group decides. They get 24 hours to vote (+1 or -1)
> and someone (our benevolent dictator if you will) can break ties if  
> needed.
>
> For more elaborate proposals, such as the structure of the website, I
> suggest the proposal is submitted to the general admin list who get 48
> hours to comment, add/remove ideas, etc. If it turns out the proposal
> was way off, we lather rinse repeat. The discussion is then summarized
> by the submitter of the proposal, proposal is adapted where necessary,
> and the proposal is put up for vote with the core admin people per the
> above procedure. (I suggest the courtesy of not voting against unless
> you have voiced your concerns before.)
>
> So more or less this is a new procedure to make decisions faster,  
> and we
> have one person who takes the necessary decisions in case the  
> procedure
> stalls. If it doesn't work, we can still revise it later on, but the  
> way
> it is now, it's hard to get things done; it feels like the Belgian
> governments, and we don't want to be _that_ Belgian.
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Brug-admin mailing list
> Brug-admin at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/brug-admin


From peter at xaop.com  Wed Mar  5 05:55:02 2008
From: peter at xaop.com (Peter Vanbroekhoven)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:55:02 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <57FA70E5-8CBF-45B2-87FA-7783EEA6744E@10to1.be>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>	
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>	
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803050100j120e23d7q8b995da4e63bdef9@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CE7038.4080507@xaop.com>
	<57FA70E5-8CBF-45B2-87FA-7783EEA6744E@10to1.be>
Message-ID: <47CE7C06.2060705@xaop.com>

Tom Klaasen wrote:
> +1
> 
> But may I suggest to continue using the admin mailing list to keep the
> discussions in the open? There's no need for everybody to respond, but
> the core group shouldn't be whispering in a corner, either.
> 
> When a general vote is needed, it can be mentioned in the subject of the
> mail with [VOTE].
> 
> That certain people will need to reorganize the rules of their mailbox
> for this to work, that's their concern :-P

Well, my idea was to keep all discussion in the open. The votes can be
private or public, depending on what the vote is about. The private
votes consist of just +1, -1, 0 (explicit or implicit). The result of
private votes would be communicated back to the general admin list.
Summaries of what the admin group is up to would be posted to the
general BRUG list too.

But I do think it is important that we retain the right to do the voting
within the core group. I'd do the voting after the discussion anyway
because then people have a better idea of the whole picture before they
cast their votes. The subsequent casting of the ballots has little to do
with openness.

Of course everyone gets the right to contest our decisions, question our
leadership, or request to join the core admin group, but it would have
to be made clear that the general admin group has the *right* to help
make decisions, and that the core group has the *duty* to help make
decisions. Being in the core group is a commitment. That difference is
why I want both, so we always have a core group we can rely on. (Wow,
big words here ;-) Because that's what's wrong now, everyone here wants
the right, but few do the duty.

Anyway, all this just to say that I agree with you, but with the
additional stipulation that the core group should still have the final,
private word if needed. And, if that fails, our benevolent dictator
kicks in.

Peter

From peter at vandenabeele.com  Wed Mar  5 12:54:34 2008
From: peter at vandenabeele.com (Peter Vandenabeele)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:54:34 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <47CE7C06.2060705@xaop.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803050100j120e23d7q8b995da4e63bdef9@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CE7038.4080507@xaop.com>
	<57FA70E5-8CBF-45B2-87FA-7783EEA6744E@10to1.be>
	<47CE7C06.2060705@xaop.com>
Message-ID: <a11b4a7c0803050954s4233e882id5b676ddcbea1d96@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Peter Vanbroekhoven <peter at xaop.com> wrote:
> Tom Klaasen wrote:
>  > +1
>  >
>  > But may I suggest to continue using the admin mailing list to keep the
>  > discussions in the open? There's no need for everybody to respond, but
>  > the core group shouldn't be whispering in a corner, either.

Fine for me. Nothing to hide, but I am curious who is actually on this
mailing list
(and I am too lazy to go and look-up passwords etc. to figure it out from the
mailing list program; and then on the other hand, I don't want someone to
mail me the list on-list ... since that would be breaching secrecy of
that list ...).

Peter

From peter at xaop.com  Thu Mar  6 16:45:08 2008
From: peter at xaop.com (Peter Vanbroekhoven)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:45:08 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <a11b4a7c0803050000s769ad1c9mb14ae4e4c4c52fb8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>	
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>	
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
	<a11b4a7c0803050000s769ad1c9mb14ae4e4c4c52fb8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47D065E4.3020407@xaop.com>

Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> * Organize a general meeting in 3-4 weeks
>   * choosing a date (Doodle); using an evening in the week seems logical;
>      location near Brussels (which is more or less in the middle of Belgium)
>   * defining a program, some ideas:
>      * presentation ?
>      * open discussion on questions prepared by the general group
>        (people post questions to the mailing list or to the admin group
>         (they have both options) that will then be used as guidance for
>         a discussion ? Could be: "marketing of RoR"; "how to find RoR
>         business as a consultant?"; "who will attend conferences?"; ....)
>      * asking if people are interested in organizing a small conference
>        of our own for september 2008 ?
>
> * have a small admin meeting before it (30 minutes before) ?
> * try to handle most other admin stuff over e-mail
>   
I have a poll ready. I'm just wondering: do we need some idea of the
program before we
start the poll? There's no point in participating in the poll if you
won't attend because you're not interested in the program.

Peter

From peter at vandenabeele.com  Thu Mar  6 16:59:10 2008
From: peter at vandenabeele.com (Peter Vandenabeele)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:59:10 +0100
Subject: [Brug-admin] [Fwd: Re: Post-FOSDEM momentum]
In-Reply-To: <47D065E4.3020407@xaop.com>
References: <47CD3CB5.6070301@xaop.com>
	<b97366280803040441g67a1c806q6cfedc64de47f536@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CDE217.8010008@xaop.com>
	<a11b4a7c0803050000s769ad1c9mb14ae4e4c4c52fb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<47D065E4.3020407@xaop.com>
Message-ID: <a11b4a7c0803061359k1e55161cm496ca3cfc2391c58@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Peter Vanbroekhoven <peter at xaop.com> wrote:
>  I have a poll ready. I'm just wondering: do we need some idea of the
>  program before we start the poll? There's no point in participating in the poll
> if you won't attend because you're not interested in the program.

indeed.

We need to propose the basics agenda points of the program
(and maybe make very clear that we will not spend 30 minutes of
_everybody's_ time on admin matters, but separate that out in a small
"ante" meeting, for which everyone is _invited_ but not required if not
interested in admin).

Peter