On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To me, a committee of volunteers that anyone interested can be on _is_ a
> community decision.

Yeah, I'm fine with this too (kind of).  I would be against a
committee that wasn't open to whomever wanted to join (like, "here are
ten people who are going to decide this"), but I'm fine with an open
committee...

The only downside with this approach (which would worry me a bit) is
that people who aren't the "elders" (a term I think ecorrado used at
one point) might feel like they shouldn't get involved in such a small
committee because they've only been hanging around six months or so
(or whatever).  As long as everyone feels like they have as much a
right to put their 2 cents in as anyone else, open committees are
fine.  That's one advantage of the larger group (for this sort of
thing) though... you can place your anonymous vote without having to
assume any real responsibility... you get the ownership without any of
the work ;-)

>  but I don't have a lot of
> patience for people who demand unlimited decision making power without
> accepting responsibility for work.).

Yeah, that's it.  I have no problem (for this sort of thing) with
someone who doesn't assume any responsibility but wants to have a say.
 It's a little different I think than the journal where there is an
ongoing commitment (it's a project that requires sustained work).

Kevin

-- 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there
are two kinds of people and those who know better.