Re: The changing of the board

[Dave Neary <dneary free fr>]

Hi,

Anne Østergaard wrote:
> The changing of the board:
>
> I have been thinking that it might be an advantage to the Foundation if
> the next board in fact took their seats immediately after the final
> announcement of the list of candidates elected this year. An overlapping
> period I think is not really necessary as I have a feeling that there
> will be sufficient continuation/ ways to ask concrete advice if needed.

While I agree with the idea of board members elect getting on the 
various lists, and getting up to speed with the state of things, as soon 
as possible, I disagree that no transition period is needed.

The old board has a couple of big things to do over the next few weeks - 
hiring an administrator part time is one such thing. It would be 
irresponsible of us to hand the baby to the new board. The current board 
was elected for a term of a year, which runs until the end of December. 
I think it's reasonable to allow the old board to avail of that time to 
bring things either to completion, or to a state where we can transition 
more easily to a new board.

> It has also been mentioned that it might be a good idea if the new
> elected board constituted itself directly after the election and pointed
> out it's chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer and may be
> press spokesperson etc.

The suggestion was actually to have those positions be elected. But 
having named positions nominated by the board is the next best thing, 
and that seems reasonable.

Cheers,
Dave.

--
David Neary
bolsh gimp org