Re: Temporaray enlargement of the GNOME Board with 3 persons

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Daniel Veillard">

> > Just want to point out that, yes, they can be - please read the
> > Foundation by-laws. The board can change the size of the board at will,
> > and nominate members at will.
> 
> Which is clearly a hole in the democratic process, the right thing to do
> would be to fix the bylaws, not jump on the loophole as a justification.

Daniel, you misunderstand - I'm not here to justify the loophole, as I do
not agree with the proposal in the first place! :-)

There are a bunch of things I think we could fix in the bylaws (but I may
feel that way simply because they are substantially different from the law
and practices that I am used to in Australia).

I do think the ability for the board to redefine its size at will is not
appropriate. That said, the previous decision to reduce the board to seven
members was discussed on the list and delegated to the membership - fully
transparent.

The board *absolutely* needs the ability to nominate members when a position
is vacant. It should not require an election process to execute that - if
the (elected) board is not trusted to fill vacant positions, then we have
much bigger problems.

Considering the current state of affairs, I think it's wholly appropriate
that the board is nominating Quim Gil (next in line from previous election
results) to fill the position left vacant by Luis' resignation, but I don't
believe it's appropriate or necessary for the board to increase the number
of directors (with or without referendum, but to answer your charges, mostly
without) at this stage.

> and the only thing which justify not working by delegation is that most of
> the operation need to be done in secrecy.

I don't believe anyone has cited 'secrecy', though the word 'private' has
come up. Ultimately the workings and decision of the board is not secret at
all, but there are activities that require a certain amount of privacy or
sensitivity. The process of dealing with employees, and the handling of the
accounts (handling, not reporting) are good examples. I don't think this is
even remotely controversial - anyone who has participated in the running of
a non-profit organisation (including you, Daniel) would be well aware of
this kind of balancing.

If the board is not appropriately reporting its activities, then any member
should feel absolutely comfortable to ask questions and make demands. But I
would ask that those questions and demands be specific and reasonable. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain            http://2006.guadec.org/
 
     "It's never been, 'We're doing this for the good of society.' It's
     always been us taking an intellectual pride in putting out a good
   product - and making money. If putting a computer on every desktop and
     in every home didn't make money, we wouldn't do it." - Microserfs