What happened to hiring an architect?
R Kent James
kent at caspia.com
Thu Sep 29 19:24:34 UTC 2016
On 9/29/2016 11:34 AM, Eric Moore wrote:
> There seems to be a transparency problem.
> 1. Why didn't you announce that decision via this mailing list? That
> is a major decision. I searched the archives to see if I had missed it.
I'm not sure which of my various points you are referring to. If you are
referring to the decision to switch the role of the consultant, I think
it is fair to say that that is in process, and I don't think any of us
involved in the Council ever considered that such a pivotal issue. But
please clarify what you mean by "major decision".
> 2. Did you tell that to the people at Pretty Easy Privacy (p≡p) that
> you were working with?
We are not "working with" p≡p any closer than we are working with any
other contributor, so I am not sure why you bring them up in this context.
> 3. The architect was also supposed to make recommendations about
> finding a home. How and when is a recommendation going to be made for
> that? Or was the decision made to stick with Mozilla?
The issue of the software architect is separate from the issue of the
financial and legal home.
A report was issued several months ago by Simon Phipps on the issue of
legal and financial home, and we are in the process of trying to
evaluate our options. Just yesterday I presented to a group of people a
proposed posting for review on where we are with that (spoiler alert: no
decision has been made). Believe me, the "transparency problem" is
interpreted by some as I divulge too much as well as others who claim
too little, so there is a balance here.
More information about the tb-planning