Re: Minor change to Board practice

<quote who="Dave Neary">

> I think there's value in having a figurehead president divorced from the
> day-to-day running of things

Unfortunately, that is not how the position is defined in the bylaws. Over
the past few years, what we have called the "Chairman" (for touchy-feely
reaosns) has for all intents and purposes served as the President, just not
in name.

> a symbolic figure who is a patron of the foundation (like, say, the Irish
> president who doesn't run the country, or the Queen in Australia).

Well, despite her most excellent maintainership of GDM, we'd love to get rid
of her. :-)

> There is an advantage too - you get to choose your president from outside
> of the community, and have it be someone with major weight in higher
> orbits - a Jonathan Schwarz or Michael Tiemann (or, indeed, Miguel de
> Icaza, in spite of him still being firmly in the community).

We could do this by having honorary members of the Advisory Board or
something. Miguel *hasn't* been firmly in the community or participating as
that "symbolic figure" -- no slight on him, this expectation was never set.

> If you're doing away with the symbolic president, then it probably makes
> sense to throw in a second procedural change, and have that person elected
> to the position, rather than nominated from within the board.

I didn't want to cloud the issue by introducing that (which is something I
have raised numerous times in the past, but not formally proposed). What we
are doing here is fixing the inadequate semantics and practice surrounding
the positions of President and Chairman.

- Jeff

-- 2008: Melbourne, Australia
     "Again you are making up inventing as you go. Be specific aba gaba
                         datata." - Oscar Plameras

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