Re: polarization (Was :Eleven good candidates)

[Lauris Kaplinski <lauris helixcode com>]

Hello!
 
> Since you have such strongely held opinions, I am a bit disappointed that you
> didn't get involved earlier on.  We've been having a pretty lively discussion
> since June on this list about the best way to organize the Foundation.
> 
> To respond to this specific point though: actually, Maciej, myself and others
> argued for having slates of board members so that we would have precisely
> that.  The current steering committee would come up with a list of 11 board
> members, who, in your world view, would represent The Establishment.  Then,
> others could come up with alternate slates.  And people would get to vote
> between these two or more different sets of people offering different visions
> for what Gnome should be about.  But the idea got shot down by the 200 or so
> people on this mailing list, who wanted to have the ability to vote for the
> individual candidates they were interested in.

As far, as I can remember, people opposed slates for the same reason - the
slate presented by core (establishment) would be elected in 99.9 0x4erobability.
The current system is better, of course - but still I understand the concerns
of people, who find those 'lists of 11' from core people eliminating too
much competition.

Well - gnome-foundation is not important to enough, to have n+1 page written
voting reglement etc. But I think, that it would be more honest, if people
like Miguel et al. would express their opinion of people one-by-one, instead
of presenting voting lists.

The whole problem lies in communication with wider Gnome community - whether
we want non-technical gnome community or not. And if we want, then whether
technical reasons alone are enough, to keep people interested in the future
of Gnome.

Regards,
Lauris