Re: Reducing the board size
- From: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
- To: foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Reducing the board size
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:43:56 +0200
<quote who="Andreas J. Guelzow">
> > It's not about radical things happening, it's about untrustworthy people
> > being elected.
> Who are these untrustworthy people? I have never been a candidate but am
> getting tired of these implications that some of the candidates in the
> past have been untrustworthy or that others have succeeded to become board
> members simply to occupy seats. It seems to me that every candidate
> received a significant number of votes, ie. more than 1 or 2, so
> apparently has the trust of somebody.
Sorry to point out a harsh reality, but there have been numerous times when
this has happened. I'm not going to dive into a public shaming exercise.
Other posters (in particular, previous candidates and board members) have
raised this issue too.
> > > It is also my understanding that the petition for this referendum was
> > > originaly proposed by David because its hard for the board to agree on
> > > anything, like having this referendum.
> > No, it has been hard for the board to come to and execute a decision.
> If you check the archives you should be able to find a message in which
> David said that the board was unable to decide on having this referendum.
> So why are you saying "No"?
I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is
the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on
this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board members (in the
past) that a smaller board would be more capable of making quick decisions,
but no change was made (there is no need for a referendum - but I think we
would have done one anyway, as a matter of community consultation). Now that
I have a different perspective on the problem, I'm glad we were unable to
execute it previously. Oh, the irony.
Consensus and execution become crippling problems because no director has a
responsibility to the organisation to push it forward (by either dropping an
issue for that term or executing it).
OSDC 2005: Melbourne, Australia http://www.osdc.com.au/
"In addition to these ample facilities, there exists a powerful
configuration tool called gcc." - Elliot Hughes, author of lwm
] [Thread Prev