Hi,
Bernhard Dippold wrote on 2010-11-30 00.37:
In my eyes present BoD members are more likely to be re-elected for a
second term (if they did a good job) as anybody else not being that
prominent and well-known in the Community.
If the BoD members want to go on with their work for more than two
years, they have to take a "sabbatical" and come back one year later -
provided the TDF members votes for them.
What I'd like to see is a request to some of the BoD members not to
candidate for a second term after the first year but to try to become
re-elected the next year and stay then for two years.
This would allow continuity over a longer timeframe, as it avoids the
problem of all the BoD members having to resign two years after the
first election.
I'm still not a friend of this two-term limitation, I just see no sense
in it. The reason behind it is clear: We want to avoid people sitting on
their chair just because of the title, but not contributing anything, or
at least preventing more active people from joining - this, however,
could be solved with re-elections/verifications of the seats all one or
two years. I don't see why it makes sense to force active people to
leave after one or two years, when they do a good job.
Andrés concern was that we don't need people in the board for them to
make a good job. Sure, but then, why do we need a board at all? The
board is a specific area of working, and if people do a good job, nobody
should prevent them from staying longer if it is good for the whole
community.
IMHO, but I see not many share this view, this rule is harmful.
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <[email protected]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
