Hello Bernhard, Florian, I updated the text and also inserted some requested additions and changes on the BoD meeting frequence and physical meetings. Other changes are commented inline below.
Le Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:37:01 +0100, Bernhard Dippold <bernh...@familie-dippold.at> a écrit : > > > BoD elections are not clear to me: > > "... the BoD gets renewed by half each year ..." > > "... the nine candidates having won the highest number of votes are > deemed to have been elected ..." > > If all nine Directors are elected at once, how should the "renewal by > half each year" work? Right, thanks; I clarified the text. > > In my eyes present BoD members are more likely to be re-elected for a > second term (if they did a good job) as anybody else not being that > prominent and well-known in the Community. > > If the BoD members want to go on with their work for more than two > years, they have to take a "sabbatical" and come back one year later > - provided the TDF members votes for them. > > What I'd like to see is a request to some of the BoD members not to > candidate for a second term after the first year but to try to become > re-elected the next year and stay then for two years. > > This would allow continuity over a longer timeframe, as it avoids the > problem of all the BoD members having to resign two years after the > first election. > > But I don't think that this thoughts (or similar ones) should be > mentioned in the Bylaws. > > One year term with possible extension for one more year (then one > year pause before re-election is allowed) is clear enough. > > How we achieve continuity will rather be discussed directly than > implemented in the Bylaws. Based on your input and Florian's input on this particular question, I think we're taking the wrong approach. By this I mean that our provisions on terms come from a good intention, and it's important to anticipate future potential issues. But there's also a different between caution, refinement in drafting bylaws and writing byzantine rules. My professional experience elsewhere shows that any system creates its own politics and also stirs the forces that may overthrow its rules. That's why I decided to stop this terms' limit insanity that I also somewhat started and come back to sheer simplicity: members get elected. No limit to successive terms. If people are not happy they can elect someone else, request a change in our bylaws or go fork. :-) > > > Another point is the position of the line about "Disputes between > Contributors". The content is about the BoD and the Chairperson, but > it is positioned at the end of the paragraph about the "Executive > Director" (without "the" in the title, while "The Chairperson" > contains it). Yes indeed. I put the sentence into the Conduct of business sub section. > > Confidentiality: Did you think about the preparation of a marketing > strategy with a result: "We're going to do this or that during the > next months and will go public in half a year.."? > > Such work can't be done if the outcome has to be published one month > after the decision. > > What do you think about > - publish results one month after the cause for confidentiality is > gone. > - internal review on a monthly basis if the cause is still valid. I reviewed the text and your proposal, and here's an existing subtelty that can perhaps provide you with an answer: what is requested is the output of the decision, not necessarily the discussions or its full content. It's quite tangential, but I also think we're a Free and Open Source software project. Secrecy only lasts so long, and I would not want to see secret committees popping up here and there. We're not inside OpenOffice.org anymore. I would much rather want to see a well planned strategy that leave volunteers and professionals alike implement it in a public fashion, rather than a secret team doing all the work. On the other hand, marketing and communications do require planning, surprises and timing. So a good mix between these two is required. If it's absolutely necessary, one can publish the output of a confidential marketing strategy planning session a month afterwards and restrict the details to interested contributors. I think it would be fair, but should not be done 12 times a year. If necessary the BoD will be able to decide on this specific question later on. > > > Membership: > Could you replace "artwork" by "design"? > > This covers not only all the branding design and visual identity, but > also UX and UI design: These contributors are not necessarily > researchers or code contributors, but experts in areas IMHO not > covered in the other criteria. +1, done. > > Membership application: Here is the only place the Steering Committee > is mentioned (as replacement of the BoD "during a interim period"). > > Why don't you state this fact already at the paragraph about the BoD? Because there are chances we will start to care about membership while the BoD will not properly exist. These bylaws apply in a context where a foundation is fully established. > > "Until the first BoD election the tasks of the BoD are handled by the > Steering Committee" or some better wording. see just above :-) > > This would not only cover the appointment of the Membership > Committee, but all other activities too. I would not necessarily go down that path. The Steering Committee's mission is covered by other pages on the wiki... Best, Charles. > > Best regards > > Bernhard > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
