Re: Petition for referendum

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu>]

Just want to note than adding yourself to the wiki doesn't
necessarily mean you are in favour of a reduced board size, but
that you are in favour of the issue being discussed and voted.

behdad


On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:

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

--behdad
http://behdad.org/