Re: Petition for referendum

[Dave Neary <dneary free fr>]

Hi Mark,

I fully recognise that this would have resulted in my not being elected 
last year. I also think that's a complete straw-man argument, for the 
reason you state.

I agree it's taking far too much energy - part of that is that we're 
working *around* the board, not with it. I'm not saying it's a panacea, 
I'm saying it's a start, one of many things we need to do to make the 
board more effective.

Cheers,
Dave.

Mark McLoughlin a écrit :
> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 18:27 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
>
> >  The section of our bylaws defining the number of elected directors is
> > Article VIII section 2 c) , a reduction to 7 would also affects the maximum
> > number of directors, as no more than 40% of the elected members can have the
> > same affiliation:
> >   40% of 7 is 2.8 , this mean that a reduction to 7 would not allow more
> > than 2 representatives from the same affiliation.
>
>
> 	That's an interesting point. By my reckoning, that would mean that this
> years board would consist of[1]:
>
> Owen Taylor
> Luis Villa 
> Jody Goldberg
> Daniel Veillard
> Tim Ney
> Murray Cumming
> Christian Schaller
>
> 	instead of:
>
> Owen Taylor
> Luis Villa
> Jody Goldberg
> Daniel Veillard
> Jonathan Blandford
> Federico Mena-Quintero
> Tim Ney
> Miguel de Icaza
> Murray Cumming
> Christian Schaller
> David Neary
>
> 	Meaning we'd have the same board, but without Jonathan, Federico,
> Miguel and Dave.
>
> 	Would that make for a more effective board?
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
> [1] - Yes, its not entirely accurate. Some people on the hypothetical
> board-of-seven may not have run for election at all if the board size
> was smaller.

--
David Neary
bolsh gimp org