Petition for referendum
Hi, I would like to propose reducing board size to 7 people. The board do not want to decide on this reduction, but will respect the decision of the membership by referendum. However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening (this is the problem which reducing board size will fix). To have a referendum, I will need roughly 30 signatories. For the purpose of gathering them, I've created a wiki page in lgo (perhaps an abuse of its intention, but hopefully it'll be short-lived) at http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition If you would like this issue to be debated, and decided, by the foundation membership, please add your name to the page. http://live.gnome.org/BoardSizePetition Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lyon, France ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Petition for referendum
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:32 +0200, David Neary wrote: Hi, I would like to propose reducing board size to 7 people. The board do not want to decide on this reduction, but will respect the decision of the membership by referendum. However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening (this is the problem which reducing board size will fix). That's not a fair characterization, Dave. We can't come to consensus that shrinking the board is a good idea, and told you to go ahead and propose the referendum so we could discuss it on foundation-list. And if the point of such shrinking is to remove dissent (or the possibility of dissent), it seems an even worse idea. We only had eight people at the meeting today, afterall. Thanks, -Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Petition for referendum
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 06:26:19PM -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:32 +0200, David Neary wrote: Hi, I would like to propose reducing board size to 7 people. The board do not want to decide on this reduction, but will respect the decision of the membership by referendum. However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening (this is the problem which reducing board size will fix). That's not a fair characterization, Dave. We can't come to consensus that shrinking the board is a good idea, and told you to go ahead and propose the referendum so we could discuss it on foundation-list. I also think Dave misrepresented the discussion at the board meeting in his mail. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Petition for referendum
On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:26 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening (this is the problem which reducing board size will fix). That's not a fair characterization, Dave. Perhaps Dave's statement is a very appropriate statement. Shrinking the board size to a single dictator would make sure that decisions will be made unanimously. I would also agree that shrinking the board size but retaining a few members will likely result in less dissent on the board. That of course is a reason why people should be opposed to the suggestion. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow, Professor Dept. of Mathematical Computing Sciences Concordia University College of Alberta signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Petition for referendum
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:37 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: On Wed, 2005-28-09 at 18:26 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: However, the board didn't agree on even having a referendum this evening (this is the problem which reducing board size will fix). That's not a fair characterization, Dave. Perhaps Dave's statement is a very appropriate statement. Shrinking the board size to a single dictator would make sure that decisions will be made unanimously. I would also agree that shrinking the board size but retaining a few members will likely result in less dissent on the board. That of course is a reason why people should be opposed to the suggestion. And I, in turn, don't think that's a fair characterization of David's statement. Here, I'll use your trick on your statement: Having a smaller board means less dissent and the ability to make faster decisions. Since dissent is simply a natural expression of the differing viewpoints in the community, we want to maximize it whenever possible. Thus, we should grow the board size to its current limit, currently all ~365 members. Ridiculous. Nearly every argument a human could make could be taken to some absurd extreme. I'd expect a mathematician not to make such a blatant fallacy. There are clearly pros and cons on all ends. Larger groups can produce and defend a wider variety of viewpoints. Smaller groups can avoid filibustering and METOOing. My personal experience is that larger groups tend to be less efficient. Cooks, broth, etc. It's not an issue of wresting control from the community. It's an issue of finding the right balance given the trade-offs and the dynamic of the group. -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
