On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 13:28 -0200, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
> > - In a nutshell, this means: We either can decide to nominate the current
> > MC as the first MC and have a "gentlemen's agreement" that they step back
> > as soon as the foundation is in place, leading to new elections about 45
> > days later on.
>
> IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
> that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
> factors for an MC.
>
> For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of this gentlemen's
> agreement.
Agreed. I too prefer this for two reasons:
a) it -may- allow us to setup the foundation more quickly, at
least we are not blocking on a fairly artificial timeline
b) it adds a staggered election into the process from founding,
such that we are not electing the MC and the Board at the
same time - which IMHO is critical anyway
So - I too would prefer to stick with the MC we have, and elect it
shortly after founding.
Then again - I'm agnostic on the point; if the founding is further
delayed, perhaps having an elected initial MC in place is fine.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
