Re: Reducing the board size

[Glynn Foster <Glynn Foster Sun COM>]

Hi,

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 00:43 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 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).

I'm not convinced you can do this with 11 people though - it's too big a
number to create synergy between the team, as you mention in a previous
mail about the usual numbers for these types of groups.

I do agree with your proposal for a standard 4 member elected executive.
Having 3 committee members on top of that seems like it would complement
that, rather than the additional 7 which feels too crowded, hence why
I'm voting "YES" ;)


Glynn