End does not justify the means [Was: Reducing the board size]

<quote who="Vincent Untz">

> On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > person.
> >
> > No thanks. Our community deserves a diverse board, and structured
> > leadership for our organisation.
> Well, looking at the previous elections results, I see a lot of Novell,
> Red Hat (and in the past, Sun) people in the board. There were some
> "independant" people too, but not that much.
> I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just trying to show some facts.
> So, if I follow your logic, I would say we shouldn't accept more than 2
> (or 3) people from the same company in a board with 11 directors.  Does it
> sound like a change you would support?

We could do that. However, I was using the worst case scenario of a board
with 7 directors to demonstrate the possible reduction in diversity. There
is less opportunity for fresh faces to be part of the organisation... Which
counters your "no more popularity contest" comments. It's going to be HARDER
to get someone like Dave Neary on the board.

Let's get this really clear: The proposal to reduce the number of board
members was based on the reduction of diversity of opinion so as "to make
decisions more easily". Sure, it will achieve that, but for *all the wrong
reasons*. This is not a matter of attributing greater responsibilty for the
actions of directors (as my elected executive proposal would achieve), it's
all about removing valid, albeit different points of view.

The end does *not* justify the means!

- Jeff

OSDC 2005: Melbourne, Australia                      http://www.osdc.com.au/
    "I can't imagine anyone telling Emma Bunton to shut up. It would be
                        rather like slapping Bambi."

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