Re: Minutes of the board meeting of April 29, 2019

[Tobias Mueller <muelli cryptobitch de>]

Hi,

On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 23:06 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation-list
wrote:
>    * However, if we are still planning to change the length of the
> board terms, we would need to do so before announcing the elections.
>    * Neil: We are talking to lawyers at the moment; we may need to
> change the bylaws to increase the board term length, so it may not be
> possible for this election.
>      * Carlos: If the term is already fixed, do we have any power to
> adjust it for any date changes in the first place?
>        * Rosanna: The term is strict.
>      * Allan: The bylaws say that the term is set at the time of
> elections.
>        * Neil: You could indeed set the term of this election to be 2
> years, but there is no way under the current bylaws to move to split-
> term elections where half the board are elected for 2 years every
> year. if we announced that the coming election was for a 2-year term, 
> then the vote after that would be in 2 years from now. We could have
> another 1-year term, and have that year to adjust the bylaws.

I guess these plans are news to most members.

I think that the proposed change is a strict subset of what is possible
today and that the cost associated with that change do not outweigh the
benefits.

Currently, a candidate can simply run for a consecutive term. They can
even make it part of their platform that they intend to serve for more
than one term or that they have served a term already. The electorate
can then decide whether they like it or whether they'd rather see change
(maybe to overcome perceived bad habits or discontinuing a cabal).

Convincing the electorate to live with a candidate for longer than a
year is much more appealing to me than mandating that choice.
I can see how mandating can be argued into being an advantage, due
to the knowledge not getting lost and the consistency it provides. I 
appreciate those arguments and they have some merit.
But my counter argument is that the electorate should be free to choose
whether they see it the same way. With the change of term lengths, you
are forcing the electorate to think the same way as you do. And again,
if a candidate thinks continuity and preserving knowledge is important,
I'd rather see the candidate convincing the electorate rather than
forcing that onto them.

I appreciate that running, re-running, or even having elections incurs
some cost. Those need to be balanced against the sovereignty of the
electorate.  As in, it'd be super convenient for the Board to not have
elections at all and pick new directors at their discretion. But that'd
remove all the power from the electorate.  As such, any increase of the
length of the term can be seen as undermining the sovereignty of the
electorate and the intention should be justified.

Cheers,
  Tobi