Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months

First things first:

1. Make sure that from a legal point of view we can have board mandate
not coinciding with budget terms. If legally we can't do it the rest
is pointless.

2. Check if the current board members would be willing to continue for
an extended period. If the current board members are not willing to go
further the rest is pointless.

3. If 1 and 2 are met then we can talking about something as
exceptional as a referendum.

Really, the GNOME Foundation doesn't *need* urgently that change. We
are used to plan and execute changes that have a mid term impact. The
newly elected board would have to wait until Istanbul to meet. What is
the so big issue with that? Until now this has been the rule and we
seem to have survived.

I don't understand really why all this hurry now.

On 8/10/07, Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org> wrote:
> <quote who="Vincent Untz">
> > Sorry, I'm going to dive into boring details...
> >
> > Is this something from the by-laws (I couldn't find a reference to the
> > "10 days notice" there, but I only gave a quick look), or something you
> > are suggesting?
> Yes. See under VII: 3-8.
> > And by "vote", do you mean "referendum" or something else (the only other
> > type of vote I know is "elections" :-))?
> Just a vote of the membership.
> - Jeff
> --
> Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain
>                     The Unix Way: Everything is a file.
>                  The Linux Way: Everything is a filesystem.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org

Quim Gil ///

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