Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Britt It's good to hear from you. :) Everyone start with zero -- I think the point is we could see what do you think. Thanks for want to made pubic as timely and reasonable. Thanks again for running the board. Max * 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 * Niels De Graef: 2019/6/5 * Britt Yazel: 2019/6/6 * Federico Mena Quintero * Christopher Davis On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:44 AM Britt Yazel wrote: > Hi Max, > > Sorry for my late response, however as I have never held a board seat > before I do not have the experience to comment either way on the timing of > the release of board meeting minutes. > > With that said and after reading the prior responses, my personal > preference is to be as quick as is possible in releasing the minutes while > the conversations and points are fresh in our minds. I have found that the > longer things sit, the more likely they are to fall by the wayside, and the > Foundation members deserve to have a timely and transparent board of > directors. > > I hesitate to promise anything as far as a time table commitment, as it > would not be up to me alone when the minutes are released, and without > having personally experienced these board meeting structure, promising > anything of the sort would, in my opinion, be irresponsible. I can say that > the best of my ability I will see that the meeting minutes are made public > as timely and efficiently as is reasonable. I am also happy to revisit the > conversation once the board is elected to see if as a team we can agree on > a reasonable timetable. > > Thanks, > > -Britt Yazel > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:13 AM Max via foundation-list < > foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > >> 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 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:
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Max, Sorry for my late response, however as I have never held a board seat before I do not have the experience to comment either way on the timing of the release of board meeting minutes. With that said and after reading the prior responses, my personal preference is to be as quick as is possible in releasing the minutes while the conversations and points are fresh in our minds. I have found that the longer things sit, the more likely they are to fall by the wayside, and the Foundation members deserve to have a timely and transparent board of directors. I hesitate to promise anything as far as a time table commitment, as it would not be up to me alone when the minutes are released, and without having personally experienced these board meeting structure, promising anything of the sort would, in my opinion, be irresponsible. I can say that the best of my ability I will see that the meeting minutes are made public as timely and efficiently as is reasonable. I am also happy to revisit the conversation once the board is elected to see if as a team we can agree on a reasonable timetable. Thanks, -Britt Yazel On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:13 AM Max via foundation-list < foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > 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 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 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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
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 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 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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Carlos Thanks for your reply. Just like my last mail. I think it's good to get more detail and information how hard to be a board member. Let every foundation member know the board hard and work hard is mean to me. Thanks again for your reply and thank for make GNOME forward with board for 2 years. Max On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:00 PM Carlos Soriano wrote: > Hi Max, > > Just an honest insight from working in the board for two years. The tasks > the board do rarely require immediate action, in fact the most immediate > important action we can do is a special meeting, which requires 48h notice > in advance. > > In general, it's more valuable to allocate a chunk of time over the > weekend, and for big tasks that can happen once every month or two months. > If my memory serves me correctly, we had around 3-4 emergencies in the last > two years, and almost all directors found some time to deal with them. > > Cheers > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 03:27, Max via foundation-list < > foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > >> Hi Allan, Tristan, Carlos, Robert >> >> Thanks for the quick response. >> Thanks all of you give us more choice and tool. >> GNOME.Asia team also use gitlab issue board to co-work together. >> >> During the GNOME.Asia role, I learn about --- "Pass the information to >> the team members fast" is more better than "Think all method alone". >> 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. >> >> 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 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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Niels Thanks for reply my question. :) 2) Extrapolating how busy someone's life is by looking at a period of 2 days might not be really representative. - It's not for 2 days, it might be answer or not answer the question, right ? :) If everyone don't ask questions or ask question but there might be someone doesn't answer any question. How could we know that candidates -- just from the bio? -- Maybe everyone ( okay, at least me... ) want to hear more from candidates. With many reply and information -- We could know how hard to be GNOME board and they work very hard, it's good, right? * 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 * Niels De Graef: 2019/6/5 * Britt Yazel * Federico Mena Quintero * Christopher Davis Thanks again for your reply Max On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:41 PM Niels De Graef wrote: > Hi Max, > > I first want to thank you for your question, as it is a very valid > point. I agree with Carlos that we already have better collaboration > (GitLab) and communication (Discourse) tools which we should look into > instead of a plain-text email. > > For the rest, I think it's wise to consider a few things before making > conclusions: > > 1) This is a question that is a bit hard to give a good answer to as > someone who hasn't served a term yet (as Tristan mentioned). This > might explain why 3 out of 4 people at the bottom of your list are > would-be first-termers. ;) > > 2) Extrapolating how busy someone's life is by looking at a period of > 2 days might not be really representative. For a personal example: I'm > actually moving to a new place this month, which means it's harder to > get a response out as soon as possible. That does not mean I don't > have time allocated for the board in the rest of the year. I think we > can safely assume the latter also applies to the other people who > haven't answered yet. > > Thanks again for your feedback! > > Kind regards, > Niels > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 3:27 AM Max via foundation-list > wrote: > > > > Hi Allan, Tristan, Carlos, Robert > > > > Thanks for the quick response. > > Thanks all of you give us more choice and tool. > > GNOME.Asia team also use gitlab issue board to co-work together. > > > > During the GNOME.Asia role, I learn about --- "Pass the information to > the team members fast" is more better than "Think all method alone". > > 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. > > > > 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 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 "meet the new board" at GUADEC. At this exact > time, the new board
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
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 > 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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Max, Just an honest insight from working in the board for two years. The tasks the board do rarely require immediate action, in fact the most immediate important action we can do is a special meeting, which requires 48h notice in advance. In general, it's more valuable to allocate a chunk of time over the weekend, and for big tasks that can happen once every month or two months. If my memory serves me correctly, we had around 3-4 emergencies in the last two years, and almost all directors found some time to deal with them. Cheers On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 03:27, Max via foundation-list < foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi Allan, Tristan, Carlos, Robert > > Thanks for the quick response. > Thanks all of you give us more choice and tool. > GNOME.Asia team also use gitlab issue board to co-work together. > > During the GNOME.Asia role, I learn about --- "Pass the information to the > team members fast" is more better than "Think all method alone". > 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. > > 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 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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Max, I first want to thank you for your question, as it is a very valid point. I agree with Carlos that we already have better collaboration (GitLab) and communication (Discourse) tools which we should look into instead of a plain-text email. For the rest, I think it's wise to consider a few things before making conclusions: 1) This is a question that is a bit hard to give a good answer to as someone who hasn't served a term yet (as Tristan mentioned). This might explain why 3 out of 4 people at the bottom of your list are would-be first-termers. ;) 2) Extrapolating how busy someone's life is by looking at a period of 2 days might not be really representative. For a personal example: I'm actually moving to a new place this month, which means it's harder to get a response out as soon as possible. That does not mean I don't have time allocated for the board in the rest of the year. I think we can safely assume the latter also applies to the other people who haven't answered yet. Thanks again for your feedback! Kind regards, Niels On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 3:27 AM Max via foundation-list wrote: > > Hi Allan, Tristan, Carlos, Robert > > Thanks for the quick response. > Thanks all of you give us more choice and tool. > GNOME.Asia team also use gitlab issue board to co-work together. > > During the GNOME.Asia role, I learn about --- "Pass the information to the > team members fast" is more better than "Think all method alone". > 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. > > 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 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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Allan, Tristan, Carlos, Robert Thanks for the quick response. Thanks all of you give us more choice and tool. GNOME.Asia team also use gitlab issue board to co-work together. During the GNOME.Asia role, I learn about --- "Pass the information to the team members fast" is more better than "Think all method alone". 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. 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 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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
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 "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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
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
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Max, On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 08:42 +0800, Max via foundation-list 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. Thanks for expressing your concern about getting timely reports from the board, I understand that this is important for transparency and helps people to feel confident and well represented. In the past, I can recall going without any updates for many months and this can be frustrating, and I think the last few years have been much better by comparison. I would love to be able to promise to do better if elected, but as I have never served on the GNOME board before I am honestly not familiar with the obstacles to getting the minutes out in a timely manner. On the other hand, I am very familiar with circumstance of being suddenly swamped with urgent responsibilities, and I can understand that situations arise which cause one to fall behind on reporting ones activities. I think the most that we can expect of any board is that they do their best, and I am thankful that in times when their efforts as volunteers has been stretched thin, they have been able to prioritize on getting things done, even if we do not always get timely reports as a result. In all honesty I can only promise that we will do our best to be transparent and report in a timely manner, as I am sure other boards have made efforts, and have not always been as successful in this as recent boards have. Best Regards, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Max, Max via foundation-list wrote: ... > Could you promise to think a way --- Everyone get "Minutes of the board > meeting" in a very close time? Thanks for the question and for raising this issue. It's really helpful for the board to know what the ongoing concerns of the membership are. I agree that fast publishing of the minutes is a good thing, and is something that we should improve on. In the past I did a short stint as secretary, and during that time I made it a priority to get the minutes out quickly, which I think I did, and I seem to recall that people reacted positively. The challenge is that speed of publishing depends on the board's capacity. To be blunt: we're busy there often aren't people queuing up to do the job. For example, Philip Chimento is our current secretary, but he's been tied up with some urgent, fairly time-consuming work for the Foundation (thanks Philip!), and no one has been able to take up the slack. But I do think that the board should work on this issue, and I can think of some options for what to do: 1. When the officers and responsibilities for the new board are decided, the board could opt to reduce the workload on the secretary. For example, they could be exempt from committee liaison responsibilities. 2. We can create a mechanism so that the board is updated about which minutes have been published. This could be an update from the secretary at the beginning of each meeting, or it could be an issue to which the board is subscribed. 3. The secretary doesn't have to be a director, so if there's no one on the board who is able to perform the role adequately, we could ask for volunteers and appoint someone from the community. The first point is something to consider when the new board takes over, the second is something that the board should look at as soon as its able, and the third is probably a fallback option to consider if things aren't going well. Thanks agin, Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Christel and Benjamin Thanks reply my question. I think people ask question -- Because they want to improve or resolve some problem, maybe the status is optimization. Thanks both of you give some suggestions. I remember there are few questions for Board candidates and not sure every candidates answer all of the question. Here is my thinking, I want to know. * Is there any way to improve Minutes of the board meeting? or something happen in GNOME. * What is the logic -- the board candidates will do? " Because it is a rule in wiki so keep it? " " I have an idea xx " " Do nothing or just vote because " I think maybe now is the best status or way to minutes of board meeting. But if no one say that " Now is the optimization the best one, there is no way to improve ", how could we know? I will ask the question because I meaning to me, If not every candidates answer most the question or no one ask question, how could we know if there are something happen, what will they do with them? Thanks again to Christel, Benjamin and Philip Max On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:16 PM Benjamin Berg wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 08:42 +0800, Max via foundation-list wrote: > > Thanks everyone who want take times to make GNOME better. > > Just a simple question about Minutes of the board meeting. > > So, with the publication of the guidelines by the current board, the > expected time frame appears to be that minutes will usually be > published at the earliest 2 weeks after the meeting (I don't expect > minute approval to happen during a "working session"[1]). To be honest, > I not think that this is a time frame that allows Foundation members to > closely follow what is happening and to engage with the Board if there > is a topic of interest to them. > > I remember that in the student-council we generally published draft > minutes immediately after the meeting. This publication was posted on a > board (inside the university building), had to happen within three days > and would be signed by the secretary and session chair. The formal > approval would only happen in the next meeting (usually one week > later). > > Now, I don't expect that we can do exactly the same thing for the GNOME > Board. On the one hand there because are likely more topics that are of > a sensitive nature, on the other hand because it does not seem like a > good idea to post such preliminary minutes to a public mailing list. > > But maybe it is possible to create a faster path for information to > reach the membership. One thing I can imagine is to create a members > only mailing list specifically for posting preliminary minutes. But I > am really not sure whether such changes are at all feasible. > That said, this seems like a topic that may be worth exploring further, > for example by talking about it as part of a public "working session" > of the Board. > > Benjamin > > [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard#Meetings > > > 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 >
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi, On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 08:42 +0800, Max via foundation-list wrote: > Thanks everyone who want take times to make GNOME better. > Just a simple question about Minutes of the board meeting. So, with the publication of the guidelines by the current board, the expected time frame appears to be that minutes will usually be published at the earliest 2 weeks after the meeting (I don't expect minute approval to happen during a "working session"[1]). To be honest, I not think that this is a time frame that allows Foundation members to closely follow what is happening and to engage with the Board if there is a topic of interest to them. I remember that in the student-council we generally published draft minutes immediately after the meeting. This publication was posted on a board (inside the university building), had to happen within three days and would be signed by the secretary and session chair. The formal approval would only happen in the next meeting (usually one week later). Now, I don't expect that we can do exactly the same thing for the GNOME Board. On the one hand there because are likely more topics that are of a sensitive nature, on the other hand because it does not seem like a good idea to post such preliminary minutes to a public mailing list. But maybe it is possible to create a faster path for information to reach the membership. One thing I can imagine is to create a members only mailing list specifically for posting preliminary minutes. But I am really not sure whether such changes are at all feasible. That said, this seems like a topic that may be worth exploring further, for example by talking about it as part of a public "working session" of the Board. Benjamin [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard#Meetings > 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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Max, and thank you for the question, Generally speaking I tend to be of the opinion that meetings should be efficient and expedient, and for a large distributed community where meetings are generally held behind closed doors I believe communication should be expedient too so as to ensure transparency and foster engagement; I appreciate that all members of the Board of Directors will be volunteering their time and that sometimes an agenda item might not get closed during the meeting at which the item is raised due to outstanding action points and the need to follow up on information. That said, the board meets weekly and while not all of these meetings result in public minutes, I cannot see any reason why a future board couldn't look at (considering the frequency of meetings) the fairly standardised approach of having the approval of the previous meeting minutes be a fixed agenda item to ensure that the minutes are published no later than around one week after the meeting in question. Any ongoing action items, etc., could and should be noted as such and revisited in the agenda for subsequent meetings and updates provided in relevant later minutes. Cheers, Christel On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:15 AM Max via foundation-list < foundation-list@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi Philip and all > > Thanks for reply the mail. > Yes, I know the guidelines for meeting minutes. > I know the 2 weeks and I want to say 10 days just an example not a real > number. ( So my question is ask Board to think a way, I just suggestion ) > During the my role of GNOME.Asia team, I wrote some minutes [1] too. > > For your question: > "I would also like to ask you: what do you think would help encourage the > kind of discussion you are looking for, other than minutes published after > 7 or 10 days?" > I want to encourage more discussion with GNOME Board, in the other > hands, how many discussion with Minutes of Board meetings or directly to > GNOME board last year? > So my thinking is -- if the minutes cloud mail in more close time ( 2 > weeks is a good time ), I think people might be more discuss with others > or GNOME board ( Or maybe not? ) > > I know the correct information is also important, but I just want to know > if the minutes is more close -- maybe people would discuss more or want to > do more. > for example: some minutes about GNOME.Asia --- when I see it with > Board minutes -- it already over and I just know what discuss in the board. > --- and that's the reason I want to ask the question. > > Thanks again to Philips work hard and reply my e-mail, and sorry for my > poor English :p > > > [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeAsia/Minutes > > > Max > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:57 AM wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:43 PM 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 >>> >> >> Hi Max, >> >> This question seems quite relevant and timely, and as I'm sure you know >> publishing the minutes has been my responsibility over the last year.
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
Hi Philip and all Thanks for reply the mail. Yes, I know the guidelines for meeting minutes. I know the 2 weeks and I want to say 10 days just an example not a real number. ( So my question is ask Board to think a way, I just suggestion ) During the my role of GNOME.Asia team, I wrote some minutes [1] too. For your question: "I would also like to ask you: what do you think would help encourage the kind of discussion you are looking for, other than minutes published after 7 or 10 days?" I want to encourage more discussion with GNOME Board, in the other hands, how many discussion with Minutes of Board meetings or directly to GNOME board last year? So my thinking is -- if the minutes cloud mail in more close time ( 2 weeks is a good time ), I think people might be more discuss with others or GNOME board ( Or maybe not? ) I know the correct information is also important, but I just want to know if the minutes is more close -- maybe people would discuss more or want to do more. for example: some minutes about GNOME.Asia --- when I see it with Board minutes -- it already over and I just know what discuss in the board. --- and that's the reason I want to ask the question. Thanks again to Philips work hard and reply my e-mail, and sorry for my poor English :p [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeAsia/Minutes Max On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:57 AM wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:43 PM 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 >> > > Hi Max, > > This question seems quite relevant and timely, and as I'm sure you know > publishing the minutes has been my responsibility over the last year. You > may have noticed that I just replied on another foundation-list thread that > I am proposing a guideline to the board for best practices around minutes > [1]. > > I can speak about my experience publishing the minutes. Looking back over > the 2018-2019 board term that I've served, sometimes it's been easy for me > to get the minutes done by the time of the next board meeting, and > sometimes, as you have noticed, it takes longer. As being a director is a > volunteer position I don't think it's feasible to always require it to be > done in 7 or 10 days. Sometimes it is delayed waiting for information that > needs to be included in the minutes or because another director needs to > carry out an action item first. It seems to have been inevitable in > practice every year that there are sometimes delays despite each > secretary's best intentions. My personal opinion in a situation like this > where a short schedule has not proved sustainable, is that there's no point > in saying "I'll just do the same thing, but faster next time" as that is > likely to fail. > > We could require the responsibility of writing the minutes to rotate > through all 7 directors so that everyone only has to do it once in a few > months, but I believe that it's actually important to have the same person > continue to write the minutes, so that they are written with a consistent > voice and level of detail as
Re: Question to candidates - Minutes of the board meeting
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:43 PM 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 > Hi Max, This question seems quite relevant and timely, and as I'm sure you know publishing the minutes has been my responsibility over the last year. You may have noticed that I just replied on another foundation-list thread that I am proposing a guideline to the board for best practices around minutes [1]. I can speak about my experience publishing the minutes. Looking back over the 2018-2019 board term that I've served, sometimes it's been easy for me to get the minutes done by the time of the next board meeting, and sometimes, as you have noticed, it takes longer. As being a director is a volunteer position I don't think it's feasible to always require it to be done in 7 or 10 days. Sometimes it is delayed waiting for information that needs to be included in the minutes or because another director needs to carry out an action item first. It seems to have been inevitable in practice every year that there are sometimes delays despite each secretary's best intentions. My personal opinion in a situation like this where a short schedule has not proved sustainable, is that there's no point in saying "I'll just do the same thing, but faster next time" as that is likely to fail. We could require the responsibility of writing the minutes to rotate through all 7 directors so that everyone only has to do it once in a few months, but I believe that it's actually important to have the same person continue to write the minutes, so that they are written with a consistent voice and level of detail as much as possible. Part of my proposal linked above, the section named "Delays" [2], is that the secretary should have the draft minutes ready to be approved after 13 days, to give board members 24 hours to read them before the start of the meeting two weeks later. I hope that by putting the minutes as the first item on the agenda for every board meeting, that will provide a consistent motivation for the secretary to generally have them ready to publish after 14 days, and also normalize that the secretary should ask another director to prepare the minutes when their schedule is busy. I don't think this will eliminate all delays, but I do think it will help share the work among the directors and also make more visible to the membership when delays occur and when to expect the delay to be solved. I would also like to ask you: what do you think would help encourage the kind of discussion you are looking for, other than minutes published after 7 or 10 days? [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/Guidelines [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/Guidelines#Appendix:_Delays Regards, -- Philip ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
