Re: Vote NO on referendum to reduce board members

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 05:11:20PM -0300, Fernando San Martín Woerner wrote:
> El lun, 24-10-2005 a las 22:01 +0200, Olav Vitters escribió:
> > 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
> > accomplished.
> i guess that you can do it now.

How? I can't easily see it now. I do read the minutes, but I'm totally
unaware who does what amount of work.

Maybe I should make a scorecard to tick off the actions done per person
+ how many months it took, but still a lot of work. I'd want the board
member themselves to vote. Some tasks might be very easy, I wouldn't

> > I do not understand why it acceptable to do nothing. The solution
> it isn't

Having a large board so that some people will be on the board means you
accept some board positions that 'are not so good'.

> > 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.
> for people like me it isn't too much, and even if you have only one
> person there you don't know if will works, it depends on who is elected.

If board members are currently doing nothing + applying because nobody
else did, why is that not too much?

> > 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. 
> that will reduce the chances to get new people on the board, and will
> fix the board members to a small group of people who won't be changed.

Currently some people apply for the board because nobody else did. They
had & have enough chances to put themselves forward. Make yourself
known (with it isn't hard.. well.. after convincing a
certain person:).
We shouldn't change a board just because of change. Change should occur
because it is needed.

> > Agreed, we need clear responsibresponsibilities.ilities. But having 11 positions is over
> > doing it.
> i agree, we need to clear responsibilities, and i guess that this could
> be implemented after the next election.

I'd like people to say up-front what position(s) they would want to
fulfill. Then we would know beforehand somebody didn't want the
position (and possibly not going to do the best job).


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