Re: Reducing the board size

[Glynn Foster <Glynn Foster Sun COM>]

Hey,

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:54 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
> 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,
> >  
> >
> I don't agree that there was broad agreement, and I was on the Board at 
> the time.
> There may have been meetings in which members opposed were absent, I can 
> recall one such meeting which I could not attend due to circumstances 
> beyond my control.

Uh, didn't we stand up in front of the members at a GUADEC conference
and explain that we wanted to shrink the board down from 11 to 7? I
definitely remember that, and most of the people who were up on stage
were in agreement from what I remember.

> This, too, is a danger, in that a small group can easily infer a 
> consensus that may
> either not really exist, or not accurately reflect the concerns of the 
> Foundation they represent.

If the board don't solicit feedback from the members then there are
problems - a small group will know their limitations, form a reasonably
cohesive team and know how best to approach issues. 

Seriously guys, this is only 4 people less. There's still likely to be 7
very clueful, careful people on the board. I really don't see that much
of an issue of losing diversity when we have such a well cultured and
thoughtful membership to get direction on.

Aside, don't you think it's rather interesting that most of the people
in this discussion are either ex-board members, or part of the
membership and we've heard very little from the current board.


Glynn