On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 09:19 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Anne Østergaard wrote: > > The changing of the board: > > > > I have been thinking that it might be an advantage to the Foundation if > > the next board in fact took their seats immediately after the final > > announcement of the list of candidates elected this year. An overlapping > > period I think is not really necessary as I have a feeling that there > > will be sufficient continuation/ ways to ask concrete advice if needed. > > While I agree with the idea of board members elect getting on the > various lists, and getting up to speed with the state of things, as soon > as possible, I disagree that no transition period is needed. > > The old board has a couple of big things to do over the next few weeks - > hiring an administrator part time is one such thing. It would be > irresponsible of us to hand the baby to the new board. The current board > was elected for a term of a year, which runs until the end of December. > I think it's reasonable to allow the old board to avail of that time to > bring things either to completion, or to a state where we can transition > more easily to a new board.
Normally the old board can only do day to day business if needed. Once a new board has been elected I think that it is the new board that should rightly take all major decisions such as hiring new staff. At least this is customary in all the boards that I have served on. Governments also follow this rule. I have not been on the GNOME Board and do only know what has been in the minutes from all board meetings so far (warm thanks to the secretary) but I think that we should have been discussing the role and job description of the new hired staff on the mailing list. It will be public any how. So far I have only read that some one said it should be an American or at least a person working from the States. Boston? > > It has also been mentioned that it might be a good idea if the new > > elected board constituted itself directly after the election and pointed > > out it's chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer and may be > > press spokesperson etc. > > The suggestion was actually to have those positions be elected. But > having named positions nominated by the board is the next best thing, > and that seems reasonable. I am glad you agree on this. Anne -- Anne Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
