Re: Reducing the board size

[David Neary <dneary free fr>]

Hi,

So, it's been over 10 days since the start of the thread, and I just 
wanted to make sure we hadn't forgotten about it.

There were clearly mixed opinions on this. There were 6 or 7 people in 
favour of reducing the size, 6 or 7 people in favour of leaving it as is 
or not reducing it. There certainly seems to be enough difference of 
opinion on this to merit putting it to the foundation membership.

I would like to propose, then, that the referendum take place in October 
(to allow the vote to happen before the next board elections). I would 
like to board to ratify this, and ask the election committee to put the 
wheels in motion at our next board meeting on Wednesday.

Cheers,
Dave.

David Neary wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board, 
> and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in 
> public.
>
> I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us 
> have a referendum on the issue next month.
>
> The board has huge problems being pro-active. Any issue which is 
> slightly contentious has an opposition in a board of 11 people. It's 
> inevitable. And when there is opposition, there are many voices, and 
> when there are many voices, there is no resolution.
>
> With 7 people, this problem will be reduced (not removed, I'm not that 
> naive).
>
> In addition, a fringe benefit is that people who will want to get 
> elected will have to run. With 11 seats, no-one runs for election. There 
> is essentially only competition for the last 3 seats. I would like to 
> see board elections have an election campaign, with people saying what 
> they want to do, why, and saying why they think other people's approach 
> will not be effective.
>
> There are potential down-sides. If you look at the most effective board 
> members over the years, they have typically not been among the 7 most 
> popular. I myself would not have been elected this year. But there is no 
> denying that the board structure as it is is fundamentally flawed. I 
> think this is one step towards improving it.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave.

--
Dave Neary
bolsh gimp org
Lyon, France