Re: Petition for referendum
- From: Dave Neary <dneary free fr>
- To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- Cc: Foundation-List <foundation-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Petition for referendum
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:02:23 +0200
Hi Mark,
I fully recognise that this would have resulted in my not being elected
last year. I also think that's a complete straw-man argument, for the
reason you state.
I agree it's taking far too much energy - part of that is that we're
working *around* the board, not with it. I'm not saying it's a panacea,
I'm saying it's a start, one of many things we need to do to make the
board more effective.
Cheers,
Dave.
Mark McLoughlin a écrit :
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 18:27 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
The section of our bylaws defining the number of elected directors is
Article VIII section 2 c) , a reduction to 7 would also affects the maximum
number of directors, as no more than 40% of the elected members can have the
same affiliation:
40% of 7 is 2.8 , this mean that a reduction to 7 would not allow more
than 2 representatives from the same affiliation.
That's an interesting point. By my reckoning, that would mean that this
years board would consist of[1]:
Owen Taylor
Luis Villa
Jody Goldberg
Daniel Veillard
Tim Ney
Murray Cumming
Christian Schaller
instead of:
Owen Taylor
Luis Villa
Jody Goldberg
Daniel Veillard
Jonathan Blandford
Federico Mena-Quintero
Tim Ney
Miguel de Icaza
Murray Cumming
Christian Schaller
David Neary
Meaning we'd have the same board, but without Jonathan, Federico,
Miguel and Dave.
Would that make for a more effective board?
Cheers,
Mark.
[1] - Yes, its not entirely accurate. Some people on the hypothetical
board-of-seven may not have run for election at all if the board size
was smaller.
--
David Neary
bolsh gimp org
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]