Re: Reducing the board size

I've been following this discussion with interest.

I don't think reducing the size of the board is a good idea, for all the
diversity and geographic representation arguments posted by others.
There is one other piece of reality we have though I haven't heard
mentioned: it is not uncommon for someone's anticipated time to change
without much warning; a smaller board makes this more of a problem.

I do have serious sympathy though to the arguments about having formal
officers and a process for their selection, so that better structure and
executive authority might exist.

But all of this boils down to the fact one can make almost anything
work, one way or the other.  Size of the board feels about right for me,
even if I think we might do things to improve its execution (e.g. the
officers idea).
					Jim Gettys

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:23 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Davyd Madeley">
> > > This is only because the purpose of the board is badly defined and
> > > communicated.
> > 
> > I think it is worth pointing out, that if the role of the board is better
> > defined in the future and if the board is "fixed", there is no reason that
> > the number of directors can not be increased again.
> > 
> > Like with everything else, the board, its role and its size should evolve
> > based on the needs of the project.
> It has taken 3 years to go from idea to possible execution to reduce the
> size of the board. I very strongly believe it's the wrong thing to do, so
> this doesn't sound like a very good way of doing things at all to me. :-)
> - Jeff

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