Re: Vote NO on referendum to reduce board members

On 10/26/05, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> I agree that they don't have enough chances because a lof of members
> vote during elections as if it were a popularity contest. And they
> probably do this because they don't see what actions the board is
> doing or should do, and who would be good at the job.
> But I also believe that the people who can not be elected because of
> this can do a great job for the Foundation. There's no need to be on the
> board!

A-men. Actually, I think we've usually got it completely backwards-
the board should be some of the *least* active people in the
foundation, providing oversight and guidance only. Almost all the work
the board currently takes on should be delegated to committees (like
the release and elections teams) that take guidance from the board and
regularly report back to the board, but don't require election. I'll
be pushing in this direction if elected next year.

Just for the record, also, I'll restate what I said earlier- I'm
voting yes here because, quite simply, there are not 11 qualified AND
motivated candidates every year. There have in most years been 12-13
qualified candidates, many of whom ran because they feared the
alternative- unqualified candidates being on the board. Until we start
seeing years where 20 extremely qualified and motivated people are
running, we need to cut down on the number of people on the board so
that everyone who is on the board is active and motivated, and so that
there is a real competition of ideas to get onto the board.


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