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

[Tobias Mueller <muelli cryptobitch de>]

Hi Carlos, Rob,

thanks for the fantastic answers :)


You've written:

On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 14:18 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> While my duty if I want to continue this work is to apply again and
> convince the membership to vote for me, this have a non-negligible
> overhead. In my case, the uncertainty is making me focusing more on
> preparing for a possible full hand off in less than a month than on
> keep working on it. This is not healthy, and this doesn't work well. 
First of all: I agree.

But: I think we'd be better off if we can establish that your work will
still be valuable even if you are not a director (any more).
(And for completeness sake: the "you" is the general "you", not second
person singular.)

I think we'd rather want to enable members to do valuable work for the
Foundation than to limit ourselves to letting Directors do it.  Then,
your premise "if I want to continue this work" does not hold, because
you could just do the work.  My memory is fading, but I think there was
a time where Board wanted to be more like facilitators than executives.

As an aside: The scenario that you described is that you are running
again, present your work to the membership as part of your platform and
tell them that they should vote for you in order for you to get that job
done.  Then the membership does not give you their vote.
Now considering the proposal at hand, it seems to enforce the director
being in power against the will of the membership.  That seems like a
change the members should not like.


> At the end of the day is a matter of balance, and between the minimum
> term of 1 year and the other extreme of no elections, we can find a
> middle ground that works better with the new responsibilities and kind
> of work the board needs to do nowadays.
yeah, absolutely. I guess we're in the process of finding out :)

> It worth to mention that it's easier for any any person to commit to
> just one year
Yes!
So I don't understand the logic that prolonging the term makes it easier
for candidates to step up.


> But this is not what we have found good for the foundation and the
> directors going forward, so we believe a longer commitment will most
> probably be what's needed.
But considering your statement above this paragraph, I don't understand
how making it harder for candidates to step up is "most probably what's
needed".

Cheers,
  Tobi