Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
- From: Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>
- To: foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:37:02 +0200
Le vendredi 10 août 2007, à 22:11 +1000, Jeff Waugh a écrit :
> <quote who="Quim Gil">
> > The current board was elected for one year and there is no exceptional
> > reason to change this. The next board can be elected for an extended
> > period and then voters and electors know what is going on beforehand.
> We could do that, and it has been discussed in the past, but it defers the
> problem (so the next board will suffer the same issue).
Forgot to reply to this: one worry (which is valid, IMHO) is that we
don't know if all current board members will have time for the first six
months of 2008. I know I have absolutely no idea right now if I'll be
able to continue.
Also, there's a small difference between:
+ extending the mandate of 7 people
+ electing 7 people for 1.5 year
In the first case, the membership doesn't choose the people (and it
might want to have new directors if it's not satisfied). What some
people said is that the idea of shifting the election cycle is fine, but
extending the mandate of the current board is not. (you can agree or
disagree with this, but I don't think you'll make people change their
So really, if we do a referendum, we have two questions:
+ Do you want to shift the election cycle?
+ Do you want to extend the current mandate of the board?
I don't think we should mix them.
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
] [Thread Prev