2009/5/18 Rachel Hamilton-Williams <rachel@katipo.co.nz>:
Hi
Unfortunately most foundations are built on a corporate model, and corporations are not democratic by nature. I think we can do better than a raw corporate model. I looked at the list of Chris' suggestions, and they looked to have mature projects, like wine, on it.
I really would prefer Koha to be controlled by a democratic foundation instead of a self-perpetuating one. There are risks to democracy, but at least if it stuffs up, it's the whole community's responsibility. Both SFC nor DSpace look undemocratic to me, appointing barons for life to rule over their serf projects.
And how is this behaviour different from the secret invitation only mailing lists we've been hearing about? Erm, I think that is probably overstating things a little. From time to time something crops up that, usually for reasons of privacy or legality, are tricky to talk about on a public list. We've had a "koha-manage" list for years, that has been lucky to be used more than a couple of times.
For example, as part of approving people to go onto the paid for support list, we need to ask for some private info (referee checks etc), so we don't have that kind of thing going to a public list.
While it is probably overstating it a bit, I can totally understand how that would be the perception. And in recent times there has been discussion on it that would have been much better served on the public lists. I think where legality allows it, discussions should be public. Decisions made that effect the community should be at least minuted if not discussed publicly. My 2 cents anyway Chris