Hi,
Jeff Waugh wrote:
No, it has been hard for the board to come to and execute a decision.
If you check the archives you should be able to find a message in which
David said that the board was unable to decide on having this referendum.
So why are you saying "No"?
I'm saying no because in
Hello all,
I'd like to express my opinion.
I've been following the messages and it seems clear why the solicitation
to reduce the board it's been talking But I can't understand why this
has to be chosen for the next election.
I see that, as said before, if there was a clear definition of the
act
Le jeudi 27 octobre 2005 à 09:49 -0600, Elijah Newren a écrit :
> On 10/27/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contri
Who are "we"? And what do you mean by "we can trust"?
--- Tristan Van Berkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we need people who a.) we can trust and b.)
> who have the
> time and energy to consider making radical decisions
> as much as
> conservative ones.
>
> It is also my understand
On 10/27/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > > person.
> > >
> > > No thank
On 10/27/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > person.
> >
> > No thanks. Our communit
Leslie Proctor wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
I remember disagreeing strongly !
As did I when this idea was brought up when I was a
board member.
As did I. This is what I meant by "inferring a consensus where none
exists" !
I'm sure you are speaking in entirely good faith Gl
Daniel Veillard wrote:
> I remember disagreeing strongly !
As did I when this idea was brought up when I was a
board member.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:58:10PM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Uh, didn't we stand up in front of the members at a GUADEC conference
> and explain that we wanted to shrink the board down from 11 to 7? I
> definitely remember that, and most of the people who were up on stage
> were in agreement fro
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 08:30 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
> I've been following this discussion with interest.
>
> I don't think reducing the size of the board is a good idea, for all the
> diversity and geographic representation arguments posted by others.
> There is one other piece of reality we have
I've been following this discussion with interest.
I don't think reducing the size of the board is a good idea, for all the
diversity and geographic representation arguments posted by others.
There is one other piece of reality we have though I haven't heard
mentioned: it is not uncommon for someo
Hey,
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:54 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is
> >the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on
> >this particular issue, there was broad agreement a
Hey,
On Thu, October 27, 2005 09:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>> So, if I follow your logic, I would say we shouldn't accept more than 2
>> (or 3) people from the same company in a board with 11 directors. Does
>> it sound like a change you would support?
>
> We could do that. However, I was using th
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> > I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that
> > is the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is.
> > Even on this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board
> > members (in the past) that a smaller board wo
Jeff Waugh wrote:
I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is
the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on
this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board members (in the
past) that a smaller board would be more capable
> On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > person.
> >
> > No thanks. Our community deserves a diverse board, and structured
> > lead
> > This is only because the purpose of the board is badly defined and
> > communicated.
>
> I think it is worth pointing out, that if the role of the board is better
> defined in the future and if the board is "fixed", there is no reason that
> the number of directors can not be increased again
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 21:21 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > But now I feel I have to be a little less conservative; the arguments put
> > forth so far seem to suggest that there are more seats available than
> > people who are really willing to take on the responsability, and I can
> > definitly
On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> person.
>
> No thanks. Our community deserves a diverse board, and structured
> leadership for our o
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 13:49 +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 00:43 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
[...]
> > Consensus and execution become crippling problems because no director has a
> > responsibility to the organisation to push it forward (by either dropping an
> > issue for that ter
> Who are these untrustworthy people? I have never been a candidate but am
> getting tired of these implications that some of the candidates in the
> past have been untrustworthy or that others have succeeded to become board
> members simply to occupy seats. It seems to me that ever
> > Consensus and execution become crippling problems because no director
> > has a responsibility to the organisation to push it forward (by either
> > dropping an issue for that term or executing it).
>
> I'm not convinced you can do this with 11 people though - it's too big a
> number to crea
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 00:43 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is
> the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on
> this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board members (in the
> past
> In other words, people not getting things done is not about the number of
> people, it's about the lack of process and/or infrastructure to help them
> get those things done.
Yep. I am advocating a 'standard' four member elected executive (President,
Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer), as o
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 00:43 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
[...]
> Consensus and execution become crippling problems because no director has a
> responsibility to the organisation to push it forward (by either dropping an
> issue for that term or executing it).
Changing the number of people on the board
> > It's not about radical things happening, it's about untrustworthy people
> > being elected.
>
> Who are these untrustworthy people? I have never been a candidate but am
> getting tired of these implications that some of the candidates in the
> past have been untrustworthy or that others have
On Wed, 2005-26-10 at 22:35 +0200, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > >That is not what the board - or even the foundation - is for! Innovating
> > >the future of GNOME is a *COMMUNITY* responsibility, not an
> > >organisational one.
> >
> > My fear is that people who've been reluctant to run but have ru
> >That is not what the board - or even the foundation - is for! Innovating
> >the future of GNOME is a *COMMUNITY* responsibility, not an
> >organisational one.
>
> My fear is that people who've been reluctant to run but have run anyway
> will cripple the board from making decisions based on th
Jeff Waugh wrote:
I think that we need energetic people who are really up to the task
of innovating the future of GNOME;
That is not what the board - or even the foundation - is for! Innovating the
future of GNOME is a *COMMUNITY* responsibility, not an organisational one.
My fear is th
> But now I feel I have to be a little less conservative; the arguments put
> forth so far seem to suggest that there are more seats available than
> people who are really willing to take on the responsability, and I can
> definitly see how this can cripple the boards ability to make decisions.
Hi all; I'll put a word in,
I've been thoroughly reading these threads on foundation-list
and have to admit that voting on this weighs on me as a heavy
responsability, that being said I will try to do my best.
While for the most part I've had to agree with Anne where she says:
"Reducing
> > > I've heard lots of unconvincing arguments as well--on both sides.
> > > But, what is very convincing to me is the fact that it strongly
> > > appears that we don't have 11 motivated people running for the board.
> >
> > Motivated to do what? To "get things done"? That should not be the
> >
Le mercredi 26 octobre 2005 à 20:26 +0200, Jeff Waugh a écrit :
>
>
> > I've heard lots of unconvincing arguments as well--on both sides. But,
> > what is very convincing to me is the fact that it strongly appears that we
> > don't have 11 motivated people running for the board.
>
> Motivated t
> I've heard lots of unconvincing arguments as well--on both sides. But,
> what is very convincing to me is the fact that it strongly appears that we
> don't have 11 motivated people running for the board.
Motivated to do what? To "get things done"? That should not be the function
of the board.
On 10/26/05, Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:10 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 9/15/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
> > > achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:10 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
> > achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
> > things done, and to have more contested
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 22:55 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > There have been a couple of *really* good examples this year - the hiring
> > of someone to do a contract on docs (which stalled for 3 months on the
> > writing of a job contract, until the person got another job) is one.
>
> How is it that
leads to low turn-out.
At least, that's how I feel: I simply do not know if reducing the
board size is going to help anything or not, and if it is, I am not
seeing what exactly (yes, I've seen mentions about only couple of
board members being active, I've seen arguments about simpl
Le dimanche 25 septembre 2005 à 15:26 +0200, David Neary a écrit :
> I would like to propose, then, that the referendum take place in October
> (to allow the vote to happen before the next board elections). I would
> like to board to ratify this, and ask the election committee to put the
> wheel
s, and ask the election committee to put the
wheels in motion at our next board meeting on Wednesday.
Cheers,
Dave.
David Neary wrote:
Hi all,
There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
public
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 18:43 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> I added some comments below.
>
> Le dimanche 18 septembre 2005 à 23:52 +0200, Anne Østergaard a écrit :
> > By the way does the board have an agenda for each meeting? I have never
> > seen one! I miss this tool.
>
> I believe
Le lundi 19 septembre 2005 à 14:16 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit :
> Do you feel that you better represent the community's interests when
> planning conferences or building teams, Or doing marketing?
I'm not answering the question since I'm unaware of the context.
I just want to highlight the "repre
Hi Anne,
I added some comments below.
Le dimanche 18 septembre 2005 à 23:52 +0200, Anne Østergaard a écrit :
> By the way does the board have an agenda for each meeting? I have never
> seen one! I miss this tool.
I believe so (although I'm not on the board ;-)). The agenda is probably
only sent
Dave Neary wrote:
By the way, I'm having trouble taking this mail as anything other than
a personal attack... ...
Dave, for what it's worth I thought Anne raised very valid points here,
and I took the message outside of any personal context. I agree with a
lot of what Anne said (not knowi
> I was planning to do a follow up on last years very successful talks on
> open standards and open file formats. Many might remember the
> presentations from capacities like Bruce Perens et all?
>
> Things that are crucial to coders trying to make better applications for
> the function of our
> There have been a couple of *really* good examples this year - the hiring
> of someone to do a contract on docs (which stalled for 3 months on the
> writing of a job contract, until the person got another job) is one.
How is it that with a full time employee, a small task such as this was
stal
> When I was elected to the board last year, the GNOME foundation marketing
> was done by a closed little cabal on a private mail alias. Now we have a
> growing community of people on a public list, with the private list for
> writing press releases and dealing with press contacts.
That's not en
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 14:16 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> By the way, I'm having trouble taking this mail as anything other than a
> personal attack...
I was trying to not get personal and start any kind of flame.
I think that most of our problems are structural and new habits and ways
of taking de
By the way, I'm having trouble taking this mail as anything other than a
personal attack...
Anne Østergaard a écrit :
People with too much time on there hands could be dangerous to the
community and to the future and the direction of the GNOME Foundation,
as they tend to think that there pers
Hi,
Anne Østergaard a écrit :
The problem in my view is the decision making process on the board.
I agree 100% with Anne here. We do not have a problem finding motivated
people in this community to do things. Our problem is deciding *what* to
do. And a smaller number of people will help with
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:52:41PM +0200, Anne Østergaard wrote:
> Points of importance for the future of the Foundation should not be
> decided with 6 votes in favour and 5 against.
For the record, such a situation never happened in the past. There
have been issues where there was a relatively
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 22:53 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 08:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > I'm also in favour of reducing the board size to 7. It recognizes the
> > reality of how we work. That way of working is very good for lots of
> > oth
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:00 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> I have not had time to review the records, but I'm pretty sure that at
> least two board members have taken zero action items all year, and a
> couple have taken very few, and that this has been fairly consistent
> every year I've been on the
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:00:30PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 9/14/05, Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:01:38PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
> > > I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
> > > have a referendum on the issue ne
On 9/15/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
> achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
> things done, and to have more contested seats **(provided enough people
> decide to run so as to make
On 9/14/05, Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:01:38PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
> > I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
> > have a referendum on the issue next month.
> >
> > The board has huge problems being pro-active. Any
It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
things done, and to have more contested seats (provided enough people
decide to run so as to make a real contest).
___
fou
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:01 +0200, David Neary wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
> and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
> public.
>
> I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 p
Hey,
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 08:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> I'm also in favour of reducing the board size to 7. It recognizes the
> reality of how we work. That way of working is very good for lots of
> other parts of GNOME, but the board is fundamentally meant to be
> decis
Hi,
I +1 holding a referendum on this.
Christian
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:01 +0200, David Neary wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
> and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
> public.
>
On Wed, September 14, 2005 23:34, Bill Haneman wrote:
> I agree; the fact that the people with the most votes don't necessarily
> have the most time to contribute undermines the whole "7 is more
> effective" position.
Isn't this a problem? It seems weird that people with not a lot of time
for the
Murray Cumming wrote:...
The fact that we are considering a referendum for this, even though it's
not strictly necessary, proves that we have difficulty reaching
consensus on stuff that can move us forward.
I disagree; this is the sort of important decision that IMO should
require a refere
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 08:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> I'm also in favour of reducing the board size to 7. It recognizes the
> reality of how we work. That way of working is very good for lots of
> other parts of GNOME, but the board is fundamentally meant to be
> decisive.
I'm also in favour of reducing the board size to 7. It recognizes the
reality of how we work. That way of working is very good for lots of
other parts of GNOME, but the board is fundamentally meant to be
decisive.
I'd usually think that this would just reduce the number of man-hours
av
Leslie Proctor wrote:
My experience is rather that all board members are
busy members of the
community, so getting people do do things is hard.
If you get 7 persons
instead of 11 you reduce also the amount of
available time from board
members. People running for the board will need more
time up
Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:22 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 14 septembre 2005 à 21:01 +0200, David Neary a écrit :
I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
have a referendum on the issue next month.
Just asking for a cla
> My experience is rather that all board members are
> busy members of the
> community, so getting people do do things is hard.
> If you get 7 persons
> instead of 11 you reduce also the amount of
> available time from board
> members. People running for the board will need more
> time upfront t
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:22 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 14 septembre 2005 à 21:01 +0200, David Neary a écrit :
> > I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
> > have a referendum on the issue next month.
>
> Just asking for a clarification: does the bo
Hi Dave,
Le mercredi 14 septembre 2005 à 21:01 +0200, David Neary a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
> and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
> public.
>
> I'm in favour
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:01:38PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
> I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
> have a referendum on the issue next month.
>
> The board has huge problems being pro-active. Any issue which is
> slightly contentious has an opposition in a b
Hi all,
There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
public.
I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
have a referendum on the issue next month.
The boar
71 matches
Mail list logo
