In reply to @orangemn6:matrix.org
this is the new website so far: https://elastic-ardinghelli-6039f8.netlify.app/

I think that the way this project is being managed is hurting it. The leader meetings (where very important stuff is talked about) are limited to a select few people, generally those who happened to be here early. This is a problem because:

1. It removes a huge part of being an open source project (allowing everyone to participate freely)
2. Takes away people's voices. I personally feel like I don't have much of a voice in the direction the project goes, despite contributing a lot time and effort to it. It seems like everything that I want to have input on is talked about in the leaders meetings, which ONLY the leaders can participate in.
3. It slows us down. Limiting how fast decisions are made based on when the leaders are available only keeps us from actually making progress.

I think that the way this project is being managed is hurting it. The leader meetings (where very important stuff is talked about) are limited to a select few people, generally those who happened to be here early. This is a problem because:

1. It removes a huge part of being an open source project (allowing everyone to participate freely)
2. Takes away people's voices. I personally feel like I don't have much of a voice in the direction the project goes, despite contributing a lot time and effort to it. It seems like everything that I want to have input on is talked about in the leaders meetings, which ONLY the leaders can participate in.
3. It slows us down. Limiting how fast decisions are made based on when the leaders are available only keeps us from actually making progress.

not done writing, accidentally hit enter, will send more soon

1. It unfairly represents the opinions of the leaders

Solutions:

1. Open up the meetings to more people. I know that having a ton of people in one chatroom can get chaotic, but there won't be that many people as the project has just begun. This allows anyone to contribute their ideas to the conversation, and more ideas is always good.
2. Remove the meetings. The project needs to keep momentum and actually create something as fast as possible. We can do this by having a chat for making decisions (probably general or something) and another place to keep track of all the decisions that have been made so far.

As zughy said, the project is overly bureaucratic. A project this small doesn't need more than a few key leaders, but we have 8 for some reason. As I said before, the leaders are generally people who got here first instead of people that can really help the project as a whole. I don't know how we should select leaders, but a vote that early in the project was not very good.

I think that we only really need one project coordinator (probably micro), a programming lead (not really a leader, but just someone who knows and understands the codebase and is available to help people), and a marketing/branding person to do marketing and branding (talking to journalists, marketing, whatever).

I don't think that leaders should have a disproportionate say in the project right now, so these leaders/people would not have more power/authority than a regular Joe, they would just help organize and keep track of stuff.

1. It unfairly represents the opinions of the leaders

Solutions:

1. Open up the meetings to more people. I know that having a ton of people in one chatroom can get chaotic, but there won't be that many people as the project has just begun. This allows anyone to contribute their ideas to the conversation, and more ideas is always good.
2. Remove the meetings. The project needs to keep momentum and actually create something as fast as possible. We can do this by having a chat for making decisions (probably general or something) and another place to keep track of all the decisions that have been made so far.

As zughy said, the project is overly bureaucratic. A project this small doesn't need more than a few key leaders, but we have 8 for some reason. As I said before, the leaders are generally people who got here first instead of people that can really help the project as a whole (quick edit here, I'm not trying to say that the elected leaders cannot help the project as a whole, just that they weren't selected based on that). I don't know how we should select leaders, but a vote that early in the project was not very good.

I think that we only really need one project coordinator (probably micro), a programming lead (not really a leader, but just someone who knows and understands the codebase and is available to help people), and a marketing/branding person to do marketing and branding (talking to journalists, marketing, whatever).

I don't think that leaders should have a disproportionate say in the project right now, so these leaders/people would not have more power/authority than a regular Joe, they would just help organize and keep track of stuff.