Re: Vote NO on referendum to reduce board members

[Glynn Foster <Glynn Foster Sun COM>]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 20:05 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> The board should be smaller. With 11 people everyone expects someone
> else to do the job. With less, people will know that applying means
> that:
>  * They need to have time
>  * They need to be active
>  * They should ask another group to do/ prepare the work for them

So to me, this is the most important part of this referendum - with a
smaller number of people being elected to the board, I can concentrate
my votes on the core people I think can get the job done, rather than
having to fill up the rest of the board with 'fluff'.

With smaller numbers, it also becomes increasingly clear who is and
isn't there for getting the job done - having sat through 2 years on the
board, it is usually split between about 2 or 3 people taking on the
majority of the work, and the rest who occasionally show up to meetings,
contribute ideas and avoid the action items.

I think some people are reluctant to let go, and hand over the
responsibility to the newer, keener members [of which there are many
appearing, and has been really great to see]. This is the primary reason
I dropped off the board, not because I couldn't add value [1], but
because I believed there were other people out there who deserved a
chance at seeing where they could take it. In next years board
elections, my vote will definitely reflect that - the board has too
important a role to play right now, and if we continue to play the
popularity contest, I think the project will suffer.


Glynn

[1] As much as having a little less time, and being constantly 
    frustrated by the lack of momentum on some key issues within the
    board