Re: Vote NO on referendum to reduce board members

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:22:17PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2005-10-24 at 20:05 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > I totally disagree. The referendum was created because we have board
> > members that do nothing at all. Why would you want members of the board
> > that do nothing? Some board members only wanted to be on the board
> So vote for members who do things. If you have less members and they
> then turn out not to do anything will be better or worse

With less members they will be forced to step down. That is my
intention. After each year I want to see what each board member has
I do not understand why it acceptable to do nothing. The solution
shouldn't be to get more people. I also do not think less people will
solve it, just that 11 is too much and is one of the causes.

I want to vote for people who do things. But what are their names? I
think we have at least 2 board members who are busy. With 11 available
positions and (last year) 12 people who wanted to be on the board
reducing the board size seems like a logical choice. 

> > The board should be smaller. With 11 people everyone expects someone
> > else to do the job. 
> Thats not IMHO caused by the size of the board (well unless you reduce
> it to one person) but by a lack of definite responsibilities fixed with
> each board member. Far better to make one person charged with PR, one
> with infrastructure, one with corporate politics etc so that for the
> general case its clear who to contact and who is responsible

Agreed, we need clear responsibilities. But having 11 positions is over
doing it.


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