Hi Eric,

Dimitry has asked me whether I agree that there would be a responsible person. The idea of a person responsible is his, not mine. I have only confirmed that I have no problem with this idea. No one should use the term "reponsible person" and violate its meaning at the same time.

It is not me who insists that there should be a person responsible.

You have to clarify this with Dimitry.

I have not proposed anything; I have only agreed to certain proposals.

If someone uses the words "responsible person" and "to delegate", he should better know what he is speaking of. These were not mine words; these were the words of Dimitry.

Best regards,

On Feb 1, 2008 9:47 AM, Eric Lavarde - FreeMind <freemind@zorglub.s.bawue.de> wrote:

under these circumstances, I do not want to take over the task, and I
suggest that we postpone this discussion post 0.9.0.

I'm astonished that someone might even think about creating a hierarchy
for an Open Source project with more or less 5 active members!


Dan Polansky said:
> Hi Dimitry,
> I have to correct your reading of what I have agreed to.
> I have agreed that I have no problem making *you* the responsible person,
> coordinating the effort. I did not mention that I would agree that *anyone
> else* is going to be responsible. I have agreed that you could delegate
> the
> task to Eric and Ray as you see fit, to the extent to which they agree. I
> did not agree that you delegate the task to anyone outside the current
> FreeMind team.
> If you delegate the task, you are still going to be reponsible. If
> something
> goes wrong, it is going to be your responsibility that it went wrong.
> Delegation does not mean passing away responsibility.
> If there was some further misunderstanding, I propose we have another talk
> on this topic.
> Regards,
> Dan

Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Freemind-developer mailing list