Re: Membership and voting and consensus... (Re: Membership)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 10:18:42AM -0700, Jim Gettys wrote:
> ***I think a view of someone being a member is someone who believes they want
> to be a member is sufficient.***

I'm beginning to think this is the best way to go about things.  The issue is

 How to somehow elect/approve/create a board of directors in such a way
 that all gnome contributors feel like they had input in the process (that is,
 so that it isn't like how the steering committee created itself)

So perhaps either holding completely public elections that are only
"advisory".  They would basically only give people an idea of who "the
community" would like to see in the leadership.  After this the board is
chosen in a rough consensus manner by the contributors.  This most likely
means the major contributors.  Such a level of ambiguity would make any
"hostile takeover" impossible.

Again, it's just an idea.  Although having a way to weed through people and
make the membership open to contributors but not to the clueless would be a
nice way too.  Perhaps nicer.  Also I'm not sure about the legal implications
of having an organization (in the US legal sense) governed by "rough
consensus" only.

Also perhaps it doesn't matter.  Even if there is a rigid voting structure
for the board, and a bad board gets elected, then the board will just not
work in the first place.


George <>
   Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
                       -- Napoleon

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]