Talk of TAC membership, and membership criteria, reminds me of a
conversation that occurred whilst some of us were in Mountain View.
I'm not sure we reached any conclusion, and I think the issues
probably deserve a wider airing.
As proposed, we have a karma mechanism to determine the eligible
candidates, and the electorate, for the community portion of the TAC.
One of the reasons for this is to prevent gerrymandering - so no one
body can swamp the electorate and thus pack the TAC with their own
particular candidates.
However, as an organisation, the Foundation is vulnerable in other
ways to this attack. If the membership as a whole has the power to
appoint the board of directors, then a body which wished to behave in
this way could simply pack the membership, force an EGM, unseat the
board, and then have the new board replace the TAC. If we propose to
allow our membership to determine the board, then I think we need to
place the eligibility gate on Foundation membership, not on TAC
membership. This, potentially, removes our ability to 'sell'
membership of the Foundation as a revenue generating exercise.
Thoughts?
Simon.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
