I added myself to the Wiki as being in favour of a reduced board size. It did strike me today however that we in addition to voting on reducing the board also vote about adding to our bylaws a way for the board itself to change its size. I mean it isn't really realistic for anyone except those who is/have been on the board to understand and have an informed opinion on what the ideal size would be for the board.
On the other hand I realize that this is a theoretically abusable power so maybe we should make it so that that the size change first have to be proposed by one board, then confirmed by a second board (after next election) to take effect on how many are to be elected for the third board? Would mean changing the size of the board would take up to two years, but if there is a critical need to change the size then of course taking the issue to a general vote again is an option. Due to this having been a multiyear board topic I do propose that we don't punt the decision on board size for such a bylaws change, but keep it as part of the referendum. Christian On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 15:37 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Daniel Veillard a écrit : > > working *around* the board: with all due respect What The Fuck are you > > talking about. > > I love it when people precede things like that with "with all due > respect". :-) > > > How did the Board block you from getting anywhere ? The > > board stalled on some issues because some items where dropped by lack > > of time or something, it was NEVER that the board refused to do something > > by being lazy, there is 2 items the board refused to follow you in > > blindly. > > Did I say anyone was lazy? > > And it's not a case of blindly following. It's about issues, when they > arise, reaching a resolution quickly. That resolution can be "no, not on > your life", or it can be "yes, go ahead". > > "Why don't you ask around and get back to us" is not a resolution. > > > Not following blindly the opinion of excited young people is not > > always just being stupid or stalled, especially when those radical changes > > are potentially extremely risky. > > The proposed change is neither radical nor risky. The biggest risk is > that the change sucks, doesn't work, everyone realises it, and the new > board reverts to the current situation in 6 months. > > Also, the board wasn't discussing *making* the change. We were talking > about *proposing to the foundation that they vote on the change*. The > distinction is important. Proposing the referendum is not risky at all. > > > So I think I am rightly pissed off at your > > two last posts at this point, public mischaracterization based on one's > > biased viewpoint of a situation is not proper in my opinion. > > Since I'm saying that the board, as it is, doesn't work well, and that > changes are made, it's not surprising that some people's feathers get > ruffled. But in any objective analysis of the foundation, it's obvious > that our governing structures aren't marching to the same beat as our > community, and that's a problem. > > There are a lot more radical things I'd love to see happen in the > foundation, this is almost the smallest of them. > > Cheers, > Dave. > _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
