Re: End does not justify the means [Was: Reducing the board size]

["Vincent Untz" <vuntz gnome org>]

Hey,

On Thu, October 27, 2005 09:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Vincent Untz">
>> 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 the worst case scenario of a board
> with 7 directors to demonstrate the possible reduction in diversity. There
> is less opportunity for fresh faces to be part of the organisation...
> Which counters your "no more popularity contest" comments.

My "no more popularity contest" comment is not only related to the
referendum: I surely hope this debate will help candidates explain
more clearly what the board should be/do and will help the members
think a bit more about which candidates to vote for.

Also, the popularity contest in itself is not a problem if the elected
people wanted to go to the board (and did not nominate themselves
because they were worried someone not representing the community
interests could be elected) and are good at this.

> It's going to be HARDER to get someone like Dave Neary on the board.

I don't know. There's no order in the votes of each member, but it's
quite possible that Dave was in the top 7 candidates (out of 11) of
each member who voted for him last year.

Also, I'm not saying going with 7 directors is the perfect solution. I
think we should *try* this and if it doesn't work, we can change it.
I might be wrong, but I have the impression that some past and current
board members tried to make the board change in some other way, but
didn't succeed. Let's attempt something else to change the board.

> Let's get this really clear: The proposal to reduce the number of board
> members was based on the reduction of diversity of opinion so as "to make
> decisions more easily".

Maybe Dave proposed the referendum for this reason. But this is not why I
voted YES for this referendum. And a other people already explained they
voted YES for other reasons too.

So this is not so clear (at least to me), sorry ;-)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.