<quote who="Tristan Van Berkom"> > But now I feel I have to be a little less conservative; the arguments put > forth so far seem to suggest that there are more seats available than > people who are really willing to take on the responsability, and I can > definitly see how this can cripple the boards ability to make decisions.
This is only because the purpose of the board is badly defined and communicated. > Jeff Waugh: > "We've had very motivated people, to the point where some of them > have run to make sure less trustworthy people would not get on > the board! :-)" > > What this says to me is that some people are running reluctantly and > dont really want to deal with the responsabilities of a board member > (judging from the responsability I feel with this measly vote; I > know I couldn't manage being a board member). However, when they have run, they have represented the membership with conviction and dedication. You've expressed here one of the big problems we have with the board - you're basically projecting this massive responsibilty on the directors, when in reality, they're just there to make sure the needs of members are heard, and to make sure the organisation doesn't break down. Sure, they need to be people we trust to represent us and make the right decisions, but it's not like they're maintaining a nuclear reactor, right? :-) > I think that we need energetic people who are really up to the task > of innovating the future of GNOME; That is not what the board - or even the foundation - is for! Innovating the future of GNOME is a *COMMUNITY* responsibility, not an organisational one. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2006: Dunedin, New Zealand http://linux.conf.au/ "Creative thinkers make many false starts, and continually waver between unmanageable fantasies and systematic attack." - Harry Hepner _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
