|
28.
|
|
|
Responsibility for the project starts with the "benevolent dictator", who delegates specific responsibilities and the corresponding authority to a series of teams, councils and individuals, starting with the Community Council ("CC"). That Council or its delegated representative will arbitrate in any dispute.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:104
|
|
29.
|
|
|
We are a meritocracy; we delegate decision making, governance and leadership from senior bodies to the most able and engaged candidates.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:107
|
|
30.
|
|
|
'''Support for delegation is measured'''
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:109
|
|
31.
|
|
|
Nominations to the boards and councils are at the discretion of the Community Council, however the Community Council will seek the input of the community before confirming appointments.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:113
|
|
32.
|
|
|
Leadership is not an award, right, or title; it is a privilege, a responsibility and a mandate. A leader will only retain their authority as long as they retain the support of those who delegated that authority to them.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:118
|
|
33.
|
|
|
'''We value discussion, data and decisiveness.'''
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:120
|
|
34.
|
|
|
We gather opinions, data and commitments from concerned parties before taking a decision. We expect leaders to help teams come to a decision in a reasonable time, to seek guidance or be willing to take the decision themselves when consensus is lacking, and to take responsibility for implementation.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:126
|
|
35.
|
|
|
The poorest decision of all is no decision: clarity of direction has value in itself. Sometimes all the data are not available, or consensus is elusive. A decision must still be made. There is no guarantee of a perfect decision every time - we prefer to err, learn, and err less in future than to postpone action indefinitely.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:132
|
|
36.
|
|
|
We recognise that the project works better when we trust the teams closest to a problem to make the decision for the project. If we learn of a decision that we disagree with, we can engage the relevant team to find common ground, and failing that, we have a governance structure that can review the decision. Ultimately, if a decision has been taken by the people responsible for it, and is supported by the project governance, it will stand. None of us expects to agree with every decision, and we value highly the willingness to stand by the project and help it deliver even on the occasions when we ourselves may prefer a different route.
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:143
|
|
37.
|
|
|
'''Open meritocracy.'''
|
|
|
type: Plain text
|
|
|
|
(no translation yet)
|
|
|
|
Located in
CodeOfConduct.txt:145
|