The board of the GNOME foundation is populated by elected directors.
These people are elected to make decisions.
But, the board has almost no decision-making power.
In fact, about the only power the board has is to spend money. For
example, hiring Tim Ney. Or, firing him. Right now, Tim is
Le jeudi 27 octobre 2005 à 09:49 -0600, Elijah Newren a écrit :
> On 10/27/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contri
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 08:54:53AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Every member has the right to nominate herself/himself for the elections.
> I don't think we want to change this :-)
>
> What I would love to see, though, is candidates announcing their candidacy
> sooner. It's really not good to see
This is elitism and reflects a club mentality.
--- Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just for the record, also, I'll restate what I said
> earlier- I'm
> voting yes here because, quite simply, there are not
> 11 qualified AND
> motivated candidates every year. There have in most
> years bee
Who are "we"? And what do you mean by "we can trust"?
--- Tristan Van Berkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we need people who a.) we can trust and b.)
> who have the
> time and energy to consider making radical decisions
> as much as
> conservative ones.
>
> It is also my understand
Hi Alan,
Le jeudi 27 octobre 2005 à 16:30 +0100, Alan Horkan a écrit :
> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:54:53 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: foundation-list@gnome.org
> > Subject: Re: Nomination process
> >
> > On Thu, October 27, 2005 04:06, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > >
El mié, 26-10-2005 a las 00:31 +0200, Vincent Untz escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> We have just sent the instructions for the referendum. Every member who
> can vote for the referendum should have received an e-mail with
> instructions explaining how to vote.
>
> If you have not received your e-mail, ple
On 10/27/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > > person.
> > >
> > > No thank
On 10/27/05, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > person.
> >
> > No thanks. Our communit
On 10/27/05, Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:54:53 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: foundation-list@gnome.org
> > Subject: Re: Nomination process
> >
> > On Thu, October 27, 2005 04:06, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > > Irrespecitve of th
Leslie Proctor wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
I remember disagreeing strongly !
As did I when this idea was brought up when I was a
board member.
As did I. This is what I meant by "inferring a consensus where none
exists" !
I'm sure you are speaking in entirely good faith Gl
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:54:53 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: foundation-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: Nomination process
>
> On Thu, October 27, 2005 04:06, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > Irrespecitve of the board size is there anything which could be done to
> > improve t
Just a note to the "vote YES" people: if you follow up on this thread
you might want to change the subject line to have a YES in it -- from
the point of view of political campaigning you want to reinforce
(visually) the statement people should vote on.
_
Daniel Veillard wrote:
> I remember disagreeing strongly !
As did I when this idea was brought up when I was a
board member.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:58:10PM +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> 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 fro
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 08:30 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
> I've been following this discussion with interest.
>
> I don't think reducing the size of the board is a good idea, for all the
> diversity and geographic representation arguments posted by others.
> There is one other piece of reality we have
I've been following this discussion with interest.
I don't think reducing the size of the board is a good idea, for all the
diversity and geographic representation arguments posted by others.
There is one other piece of reality we have though I haven't heard
mentioned: it is not uncommon for someo
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 a
Hey,
On Thu, October 27, 2005 09:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>> So, if I follow your logic, I would say we shouldn't accept more than 2
>> (or 3) people from the same company in a board with 11 directors. Does
>> it sound like a change you would support?
>
> We could do that. However, I was using th
> 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 wo
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
> On Thu, October 27, 2005 03:15, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > 7 is way too small to represent the diversity of our community. Consider
> > it in these terms: 2 people from 3 contributing companies and 1 other
> > person.
> >
> > No thanks. Our community deserves a diverse board, and structured
> > lead
> > This is only because the purpose of the board is badly defined and
> > communicated.
>
> I think it is worth pointing out, that if the role of the board is better
> defined in the future and if the board is "fixed", there is no reason that
> the number of directors can not be increased again
23 matches
Mail list logo
