Hi Robert Thanks for reply my question again. We could have many information when we see the reply. Just like my last mail -- the list could be "Answer" or "Not Answer", "Date" or "None"
I just check the foundation-list@gnome.org mail list last year( 2018 ). " There is no question to board candidates " At 2017, only 1 question to board candidates. I just explain why I do that -- If there is no reply from candidates -- We just have their bio :p Max On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:48 PM Robert McQueen <ra...@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi Max, > > On Wed, 2019-06-05 at 09:26 +0800, Max via foundation-list wrote: > > We are all volunteer live in different time zone, we have real job and > life. So we will do community task at rest time of real life. > It's good to do community task in reasonable time. > I think ask question to candidates during the election time -- we might be > see how busy they are in real life. > To guess how much time the candidates could spend on community tasks. > If someone is real great but he / she is 100% or 90% busy in real life, > she / he might be have no time to help. > > > Serving on the board is a form of volunteering your time to help the GNOME > community. It comes with specific and quite predictable time commitments in > terms of the board meetings, e-mails, etc that being a board member entails > - usually around 2 hours a week, and usually at the same time each week. As > Carlos points out, these are rarely urgent. The board has actually been > trying to take a more "hands off" role - focusing on oversight, strategy, > etc rather than day to day or urgent decisions. The Foundation now has 7 > full-time staff and they should be able to dedicate far more time and be > more responsive. > > So - provided the board candidate is able to dedicate these specific > times, I don't think response time or availability to volunteer for > additional things should necessarily be considered while assessing board > candidates for election - if someone isn't available to volunteer for > community tasks that doesn't mean they will be a bad board member. I hope > in my case the opposite is true - I am very busy in my personal and > professional life because I am on the leadership team of Endless, a company > that works with GNOME - but this means I have experience as a > director/executive which I think I can use to help the Foundation board set > a good strategy and sensible policies, manage it's resources well, manage > the ED, etc. Whether a board member takes on additional > community/volunteering tasks (eg organising a conference, joining a > committee, being an officer like secretary or treasurer, etc) is a separate > decision. (I personally don't have a lot /more/ time to give, but when I do > I choose to spend it on Flatpak/Flathub because I think the app ecosystem > is a blocker to the Linux desktop's overall growth and impact.) > > Cheers, > Rob > > > The date is for UTC +08:00 in my local time. > > * Philip Chimento: 2019/6/4 > * Christel Dahlskjaer: 2019/6/4 > * Benjamin Berg: 2019/6/4 > * Allan Day: 2019/6/4 > * Tristan Van Berkom: 2019/6/4 > * Carlos Soriano: 2019/6/4 > * Robert McQueen: 2019/6/5 > > * Britt Yazel > * Niels De Graef > * Federico Mena Quintero > * Christopher Davis > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:55 AM Robert McQueen <ra...@gnome.org> wrote: > > Hi Max, > > For what it's worth - I agree very strongly with Carlos here. The > community seems very "latched on" to minutes as the only/best way to hear > from or understand the board. I believe that on the whole Philip and > Federico as Secretary and Vice-Secretary have been doing as good a job as > could reasonably be expected of them, in terms of keeping the process > running and making sure the minutes happen and are published within weeks > rather than months. It's certainly as good or as close to as good as I've > seen it during the past few years, and as a time-starved collection of > volunteers, I don't think it's feasible for an incoming director to promise > that the preparation of minutes will change significantly. > > That said; we hear the concerns about timeliness and transparency but > really - poring over summarised board minutes looking for decisions (or > conspiriacies) and second-guessing justifications/motivations is not a good > way to build trust and transparency. Communication should be more > intentional and directed, ideally the board should be more accessible. This > is why I blogged about the key topics and things we were aiming to do from > our hackfest last year. > > I think that Carlos' GitLab and Discourse suggestions are great, and maybe > there are some other things we could consider - some round table / AMA > things - so that the board is in discussion with the membership more > frequently than the big Q&A "meet the new board" at GUADEC. At this exact > time, the new board don't really know what they're doing (or about to do) - > at least I certainly didn't - so you might get intentions/aspirations but > very little insight into what is actually ongoing and why. > > (As a side point, I am also not used to the concept that a board or other > panel would /not/ periodically approve it's previous minutes - but I would > also not expect a board to ordinarily meet every two weeks. We've moved > from weekly to bi-weekly meetings during this board term, which is great, > but ideally as we build trust/process/oversight in the ED and staff, the > board should ideally have to meet less often.) > > As the staff team grows, more of the "stuff the foundation does" should > move away from the board making micro-decisions, and more towards "business > as usual" for the staff. Then the reporting and transparency requirement > moves from the board to the staff - especially as they are (by their very > existence) consuming donor funds. So I feel this transparency is also very > important. As the ED line manager, I think we've made some progress during > this term and have converted some of Neil's reporting to the board into eg > a blog post visible to the community, but clearer and more frequent updates > on "what is the foundation doing" particularly through the activities of > staff is something I would hope to be able to continue working on with Neil > and his team over the coming year. > > Thanks, > Rob > > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 22:22 +0200, Carlos Soriano wrote: > > Hi Max, > > Thanks for your question. You raise a very good point, I agree with you > that we need to improve participation of the community on board topics, and > it's specially difficult if the information is delayed for too long. > > This is indeed a difficult situation. Some topics that the board discusses > are quite sensible, and sometimes we are in doubt whether parts of it are > private or not, so that requires consensus and therefore delays happen. As > you can imagine, we rely on volunteer time to discuss and process them, and > the availability of each director and secretaries is limited. In all > honesty, while this can always be improved with our current processes, I > think Philip Chimento and Federico made an excellent job with minutes. > > However, let me comment about the lack of participation. I think one of > the reasons is that minutes are simply not the best tool for this. Minutes > feel to me too much of a one way communication, and on top of that they are > over email, which is not the most encouraging tool to manage and track > discussions. They are good for keeping a record, but not so good for much > else. Improving this situation was one of the reasons we moved our key > conversations to GitLab issues, so community members could closely follow > them and chime in directly if wanted. > > My vision to encourage more participation would be around using more > tooling such as GitLab and Discourse for board discussions, and on top of > that, keep pushing on our goal to put as early as possible key initiatives > there to allow members to actually participate. I believe we have a big > room to improve, specially with initiatives that are not time sensible. > > Lastly, an interesting idea I think we could do is a round of questions to > the membership to know what topics they were interested in and that we > could have done better with their minutes. Although I believe the board is > always open to feedback, I personally look forward to know about those. > > Thanks, > Carlos Soriano > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 02:43, Max via foundation-list < > foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thanks for running for the board. > > Thanks everyone who want take times to make GNOME better. > Just a simple question about Minutes of the board meeting. > > Data and information might be different. > For me - a GNOME foundation member > > Data - Get "Minutes of the board meeting" after 1 month or 2 weeks after. > ---- Because maybe the event is already close or over. > > Information - Get "Minutes of the board meeting" in 1 week or 10 days. > ---- Because something might be happening and everyone could discuss with > board and reply. > > ==== Here is the question ==== > > Could you promise to think a way --- Everyone get "Minutes of the board > meeting" in a very close time? > > Here is my suggestion. > Maybe there will be a table to record the "Minutes of the board meeting" > announcement time and does it announce in short time? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | board meeting | Minutes | in 10 days ? > | > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | 2019/4/29 | 2019/5/22 | No > | > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | 2019/4/8 | 2019/5/15 | No > | > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | 2019/3/13 | 2019/5/15 | No > | > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Maybe it could be a record in GNOME annual report？ > ---- There are ? % for Minutes of the board meeting on time to announce. > > I want to say --- It not just secretary task, It's the information we want > to get from all GNOME Board member. > > Thanks again for all who take time to running the board > > > Max > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-list mailing list > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-list mailing list > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > >
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
