Re: Petition for referendum

On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:37 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:26 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> > > 
> > > However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening 
> > > (this is the problem which reducing board size will fix).
> > 
> > That's not a fair characterization, Dave.  
> Perhaps Dave's statement is a very appropriate statement. Shrinking the
> board size to a single dictator would make sure that decisions will be
> made unanimously.
> I would also agree that shrinking the board size but retaining a few
> members will likely result in less dissent on the board.
> That of course is a reason why people should be opposed to the
> suggestion.

And I, in turn, don't think that's a fair characterization of
David's statement.  Here, I'll use your trick on your statement:

Having a smaller board means less dissent and the ability to make
faster decisions.  Since dissent is simply a natural expression of
the differing viewpoints in the community, we want to maximize it
whenever possible.  Thus, we should grow the board size to its
current limit, currently all ~365 members.

Ridiculous.  Nearly every argument a human could make could be
taken to some absurd extreme.  I'd expect a mathematician not
to make such a blatant fallacy.

There are clearly pros and cons on all ends.  Larger groups can
produce and defend a wider variety of viewpoints.  Smaller groups
can avoid filibustering and METOOing.  My personal experience is
that larger groups tend to be less efficient.  Cooks, broth, etc.
It's not an issue of wresting control from the community.  It's
an issue of finding the right balance given the trade-offs and
the dynamic of the group.


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