Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months

["Andy Tai" <atai gnu org>]

OK, anyway, I think the current board extending its mandate is not a
good thing because the "contract" with the voting body (the membership)
is already defined.  Maybe the next board can enjoy an extended term if
approved in a election.  I agree that would be a better approach.

On 8/14/07, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org > wrote:

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 02:33 -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to
> face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term
> limit of the board.

And why do you think so?  I totally understand that you may be against
extending the term of the current board.  That makes total sense, and
there's no consensus even at the board level.  But, what do you see so
in need of justification for extending the term of one board (the next
one) from 12 months to 17 months?  How can that affect the foundation in
a negative way?


behdad