Re: Reducing the board size

[Dave Neary <dneary free fr>]

Hi,

Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > No, it has been hard for the board to come to and execute a decision. 
> >
> > If you check the archives you should be able to find a message in which
> > David said that the board was unable to decide on having this referendum.
> > So why are you saying "No"?
>
> I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is
> the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on
> this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board members (in the
> past) that a smaller board would be more capable of making quick decisions,
> but no change was made (there is no need for a referendum - but I think we
> would have done one anyway, as a matter of community consultation). Now that
> I have a different perspective on the problem, I'm glad we were unable to
> execute it previously. Oh, the irony.

To illustrate the point that Jeff is making (which I agree with, 
mostly), what happens often with the board is that someone will contact 
the board looking for a decision or some direction (like permission to 
sell GNOME merchandise, or permission to reproduce the logo), or someone 
will have a proposal for some expenditure (like the events box this 
year), and one person, or two, reply on the list saying "I think we 
should..." And then nothing happens. It never makes it onto a board 
meeting agenda, and the majority of the board just don't say anything 
about it.

What then happens is either (1) the person who said "I think we 
should..." does a little red hen on it, and just replies to the person, 
giving the "official" board position. Or (2) the person is happy to have 
expressed themselves on the issue, and unless someone replies a couple 
of weeks later saying "so what did we tell this person?", the original 
request gets forgotten.

This is what Jeff means by going from concensus to execution.

Cheers,
Dave.

--
David Neary
bolsh gimp org