Re: Reducing the board size


Jeff Waugh wrote:
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.

To illustrate the point that Jeff is making (which I agree with, mostly), what happens often with the board is that someone will contact the board looking for a decision or some direction (like permission to sell GNOME merchandise, or permission to reproduce the logo), or someone will have a proposal for some expenditure (like the events box this year), and one person, or two, reply on the list saying "I think we should..." And then nothing happens. It never makes it onto a board meeting agenda, and the majority of the board just don't say anything about it.

What then happens is either (1) the person who said "I think we should..." does a little red hen on it, and just replies to the person, giving the "official" board position. Or (2) the person is happy to have expressed themselves on the issue, and unless someone replies a couple of weeks later saying "so what did we tell this person?", the original request gets forgotten.

This is what Jeff means by going from concensus to execution.


David Neary
bolsh gimp org

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