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

George <> writes: 
> 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.

What are "the contributors"? That just re-opens the whole "who gets to
be a member" can of worms.


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