Hi Joshua,
On 2016-07-16 18:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 07/16/2016 06:58 AM, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
Greetings to all, and in particular to those I have not had the chance
to collaborate with yet.
Yesterday I became a SPI member, apparently thanks to Martin
Zobel-Helas, just in time for the 2016 SPI board elections, in which I
was able to vote.
Welcome!
Joshua D. Drake
Just one comment on a specific statement, Joshua's. It contains:
Getting business items in order such as proper insurance and
professional services.
What this means is vague for me (I fail to see what "business items"
means concretely).
Concretely, the corporation is not properly protected against potential hostile
or negligent action. This protection usually comes in the form of Limited
Liability and Director's an Officers insurance.
That is still quite abstract for me (What kind of "hostile action" are we
concerned with?).
[...]
General
Most statements say a lot more about what one has done than about what
one intends to do. There's still one easy information about who
candidates are which is usually missing : their age.
I am not sure that age is relevant but I am 43.
Thank you
I am more interested in a candidates willingness to participate, be effective
and move the corporation forward versus whether they are 22 or 65.
Me too.
Below a certain age, lack of maturity may make a candidature a lot less
interesting. But in the end, it seems that all candidates in the last election
had plenty of maturity. To clarify, that question only came to me when reading
one specific platform. I was just suggesting this because it is trivial to
include this information, not because it is particularly lacking.
I ranked candidates based on what their statements said about their
achievements, their goals, and my prior perception of them. Being a
long-time Debian developer, my ranking surely shows some bias. I was
hoping for commitments to transparency but did not read much on that.
I would argue that transparency is implied. We are a U.S. based non-profit and
the rules are pretty clear. Every member is able to attend every board meeting,
all of our resolutions and financial matters are public etc...
While there is a large part of our operations which is transparent, I did not
suspect that such a part was not.
From the 5 mailing lists, 3 are private. And the only private list I have
access to seems to have more traffic than the public lists combined, if I trust
the sample formed by the couple of weeks of presence I have. That would mean
public discussions are a minority of SPI's mailing list discussions.
The contact page gives only private contact adresses for the board, the
officers and the website.
The number of members is not available, nor is a list of these members, a list
of members who requested to become contributing members, or the list of members
whose contributing membership application was rejected.
Passive transparency would be a great start, but some basic facts should also
be published. For example, I cannot see SPI's staff.
Issue tracking
The desire to properly report this presumed issue brings me to a
meta-issue: does SPI not have an issue tracking system?
We do for reimbursements. Usually any feedback of that kind would go through
the -private list. However, I could certainly see opening up a tracking system
for other items, especially member concerns as a whole. That is a good idea.
Thank you very much for that (and your other answers). I have formally requested SPI to
implement such a system in thread "Issue #0 - No general-purpose issue tracking
system": http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003493.html
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
