Hey, On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:54 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote: > Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > >I'm saying no because in the general case, it's not basic agreement that is > >the problem, it's the finality and commitment of execution that is. Even on > >this particular issue, there was broad agreement among board members (in the > >past) that a smaller board would be more capable of making quick decisions, > > > > > I don't agree that there was broad agreement, and I was on the Board at > the time. > There may have been meetings in which members opposed were absent, I can > recall one such meeting which I could not attend due to circumstances > beyond my control.
Uh, didn't we stand up in front of the members at a GUADEC conference and explain that we wanted to shrink the board down from 11 to 7? I definitely remember that, and most of the people who were up on stage were in agreement from what I remember. > This, too, is a danger, in that a small group can easily infer a > consensus that may > either not really exist, or not accurately reflect the concerns of the > Foundation they represent. If the board don't solicit feedback from the members then there are problems - a small group will know their limitations, form a reasonably cohesive team and know how best to approach issues. Seriously guys, this is only 4 people less. There's still likely to be 7 very clueful, careful people on the board. I really don't see that much of an issue of losing diversity when we have such a well cultured and thoughtful membership to get direction on. Aside, don't you think it's rather interesting that most of the people in this discussion are either ex-board members, or part of the membership and we've heard very little from the current board. Glynn _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
