Re: Petition for referendum

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman sun com>]

IMO the main Board problems are task assignment and delegation.  
Reducing the size of the Board won't directly help delegation, and 
reducing the available resources by having fewer Directors will only 
worsen task assignment/completion problems.  I think many respondants 
realize that delegation is a problem, but without tacking the _real_ 
structural/procedural problems, a reduction in size will only make 
things worse.

Bill

Vincent Untz wrote:

> Le jeudi 29 septembre 2005 �7:00 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow a �it :
>  
>
> > On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 17:55 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > 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.
> > >      
> > In view of Dave's statement it appears to me that the point is to make
> > the board small enough to avoid dissent. 
> >    
>
> No. I think one of the point is to make the board small enough to avoid
> never-ending discussions. There will always be dissent (and it's not a
> bad thing ;-)). What's not good is not taking any decision or not moving
> forward because of dissent. Having a smaller group *might* help for
> this.
>
> Also, Dave wrote on his blog: "Or worse, someone mails the board with a
> question, and because there are so many of us, everyone things "someone
> else will answer that one", and the issue drops through the cracks."
>
> This happened to me. And not only once. I'm not blaming the board for
> this because I believe they're all trying to do their best, but this
> should really not happen.
>
> The real problem might be that some (most? all?) of the directors don't
> have enough time for the Foundation because they're also working on
> other things (and I'm glad to see them working on other things because
> they rock on those things!).
>
> Is there any bad things about reducing the board size? I guess the first
> argument would be "the board will be too small for doing everything it
> should do". I'm not sure that's true, and even if it's true, I hope the
> board will delegate tasks to other people. And in the end, it might help
> doing a better job.
>
> I'm not saying reducing the board size is the perfect solution to all
> problems. But it might help.
>
> Vincent
>
>