Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> > So really, if we do a referendum, we have two questions: > > > > + Do you want to shift the election cycle? > > + Do you want to extend the current mandate of the board? > > > > I don't think we should mix them. > > Two questions can be the kiss of death for a 'referendum'. :-) I've put a > question to the Board now, so let's see if/what the group accepts. I've modified my proposal to the Board to put forward two questions. - Jeff -- GNOME Boston Summit 2007http://live.gnome.org/Boston2007 The Unix Way: Everything is a file. The Linux Way: Everything is a filesystem. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Andy Tai a écrit : > Something like GnomeMeeting (now with a newer name) can be utilized to have > faces seeing faces... The new name is ekiga, and it's indeed a gnome project -- I'm working on it at this very moment! Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Something like GnomeMeeting (now with a newer name) can be utilized to have faces seeing faces... There was some talk of a GNOME conference in East Asia. Maybe it would be a good idea to have an annual event there in China, or Japan, or Korea, in early Spring... On 8/10/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to > face > > meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit > of > > the board. > > In that case -- let's try for productive input here, if possible -- how do > you suggest we solve the problem? (Or describe why it's not a problem that > needs to be solved.) > > - Jeff > > -- > GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia > http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 > -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of the board. On 8/9/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The proposal is about doing something out of the ordinary processes > defined > by the bylaws -- that is why we are consulting the membership. Rather than > point out that the situation is extraordinary, please tell us your > feelings > or concerns about the proposal as a member. > > - Jeff ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Andy Tai a écrit : > It still looks strange to have the voting body to vote to extend the term of > the current board, not the same as a general election. > > Extending the terms of some leadership tend to happen under situations where > something prevents the holding of regular elections... nothing comparable > exists here for the GNOME Foundation. Indeed! Here is how the mandate of french presidents went from seven to five years : - a referendum chose to modify the term length -- but not for the then-current president ; - a normal election happened at the normal date for a new president with the new term. This made the 'who' and the 'how long' independent, and I think there is wisdom in it. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:44 -0700, Andy Tai wrote: > It's like extending George Bush's term by two years... a rather > drastic thing to do... That's an unfair comparison (despite your disclaimer). If you or anyone has concrete reasons for the current board not to extend its period, We'd like to read about them. Saying that it's a drastic thing to do without really justifying it is kinda stop energy to my taste. Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
[Fwd: Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months]
Sigh... this mail was sent more than twelve hours ago but didn't make it... from now on I'll be using a more direct email address. Message original Sujet: Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:53:34 +0200 De: Julien PUYDT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copie: foundation-list@gnome.org Références: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andy Tai a écrit : > It still looks strange to have the voting body to vote to extend the term of > the current board, not the same as a general election. > > Extending the terms of some leadership tend to happen under situations where > something prevents the holding of regular elections... nothing comparable > exists here for the GNOME Foundation. Indeed! Here is how the mandate of french presidents went from seven to five years : - a referendum chose to modify the term length -- but not for the then-current president ; - a normal election happened at the normal date for a new president with the new term. This made the 'who' and the 'how long' independent, and I think there is wisdom in it. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> 1. Make sure that from a legal point of view we can have board mandate not > coinciding with budget terms. If legally we can't do it the rest is > pointless. I've put it to our legal folks and am waiting for a response. > 2. Check if the current board members would be willing to continue for an > extended period. If the current board members are not willing to go > further the rest is pointless. Sure. The Board will decide whether or not to call a vote. > 3. If 1 and 2 are met then we can talking about something as exceptional > as a referendum. > > Really, the GNOME Foundation doesn't *need* urgently that change. We are > used to plan and execute changes that have a mid term impact. The newly > elected board would have to wait until Istanbul to meet. What is the so > big issue with that? Until now this has been the rule and we seem to have > survived. > > I don't understand really why all this hurry now. Please don't mistake "doing" for "haste". :-) There is no hurry, but I have a desire to see this problem solved, and I feel we have a responsibility to solve it such that the next Board may benefit from it. We've talked about it for long enough that I'm happy to take the bullet to actually do something about it. :-) It's August, so we have about three months to put this to our members before the elections must be held. No hurry, but it's a good time to get moving. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ We're kind of like Canada, only we hate ourselves more, and it's wetter around the edges. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> Forgot to reply to this: one worry (which is valid, IMHO) is that we don't > know if all current board members will have time for the first six months > of 2008. I know I have absolutely no idea right now if I'll be able to > continue. Agree, though directors can resign, and the Board can appoint new directors to fill vacancies. It need not have an impact on the proper function of the Board. > So really, if we do a referendum, we have two questions: > > + Do you want to shift the election cycle? > + Do you want to extend the current mandate of the board? > > I don't think we should mix them. Two questions can be the kiss of death for a 'referendum'. :-) I've put a question to the Board now, so let's see if/what the group accepts. - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ "We must be proactive, eternally vigilant, forever fighting, overwhelmingly clever and handsome." - Robert Love ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
First things first: 1. Make sure that from a legal point of view we can have board mandate not coinciding with budget terms. If legally we can't do it the rest is pointless. 2. Check if the current board members would be willing to continue for an extended period. If the current board members are not willing to go further the rest is pointless. 3. If 1 and 2 are met then we can talking about something as exceptional as a referendum. Really, the GNOME Foundation doesn't *need* urgently that change. We are used to plan and execute changes that have a mid term impact. The newly elected board would have to wait until Istanbul to meet. What is the so big issue with that? Until now this has been the rule and we seem to have survived. I don't understand really why all this hurry now. On 8/10/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, I'm going to dive into boring details... > > > > Is this something from the by-laws (I couldn't find a reference to the > > "10 days notice" there, but I only gave a quick look), or something you > > are suggesting? > > Yes. See under VII: 3-8. > > > And by "vote", do you mean "referendum" or something else (the only other > > type of vote I know is "elections" :-))? > > Just a vote of the membership. > > - Jeff > > -- > Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ > > The Unix Way: Everything is a file. > The Linux Way: Everything is a filesystem. > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> Sorry, I'm going to dive into boring details... > > Is this something from the by-laws (I couldn't find a reference to the > "10 days notice" there, but I only gave a quick look), or something you > are suggesting? Yes. See under VII: 3-8. > And by "vote", do you mean "referendum" or something else (the only other > type of vote I know is "elections" :-))? Just a vote of the membership. - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ The Unix Way: Everything is a file. The Linux Way: Everything is a filesystem. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Le vendredi 10 août 2007, à 22:11 +1000, Jeff Waugh a écrit : > > > > The current board was elected for one year and there is no exceptional > > reason to change this. The next board can be elected for an extended > > period and then voters and electors know what is going on beforehand. > > We could do that, and it has been discussed in the past, but it defers the > problem (so the next board will suffer the same issue). Forgot to reply to this: one worry (which is valid, IMHO) is that we don't know if all current board members will have time for the first six months of 2008. I know I have absolutely no idea right now if I'll be able to continue. Also, there's a small difference between: + extending the mandate of 7 people + electing 7 people for 1.5 year In the first case, the membership doesn't choose the people (and it might want to have new directors if it's not satisfied). What some people said is that the idea of shifting the election cycle is fine, but extending the mandate of the current board is not. (you can agree or disagree with this, but I don't think you'll make people change their mind ;-)) So really, if we do a referendum, we have two questions: + Do you want to shift the election cycle? + Do you want to extend the current mandate of the board? I don't think we should mix them. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Le vendredi 10 août 2007, à 22:11 +1000, Jeff Waugh a écrit : > We can call a vote with minimum ten days notice (but we'll have to work with > the membership committee to ensure the infrastructure exists to run it). Sorry, I'm going to dive into boring details... Is this something from the by-laws (I couldn't find a reference to the "10 days notice" there, but I only gave a quick look), or something you are suggesting? And by "vote", do you mean "referendum" or something else (the only other type of vote I know is "elections" :-))? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> The current board was elected for one year and there is no exceptional > reason to change this. The next board can be elected for an extended > period and then voters and electors know what is going on beforehand. We could do that, and it has been discussed in the past, but it defers the problem (so the next board will suffer the same issue). I think this illustrates a misunderstanding of the word 'exceptional'. We don't need an 'exceptional' reason to put a change like this to the members, but the process of doing so would be to hold a 'special' or 'exceptional' meeting (or in our case, an online vote). The proposal email was pretty clear: It's highly unlikely that we'd do this without going to the membership for a vote. So the "knowing beforehand" idea that has been raised a number of times is not really relevant. If members are uncomfortable with it, they'll vote it down, and we'll have to come up with another solution (which itself will have to involve a vote anyway, as the bylaws do not provide a mechanism for doing this). I'm pretty satisfied that the responses we've had so far indicate that this is worth pursuing by putting a vote to the membership. We can call a vote with minimum ten days notice (but we'll have to work with the membership committee to ensure the infrastructure exists to run it). - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ http://www.illusionary.com/GNOMEvKDE.html ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
The current board was elected for one year and there is no exceptional reason to change this. The next board can be elected for an extended period and then voters and electors know what is going on beforehand. On 8/10/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face > > meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of > > the board. > > In that case -- let's try for productive input here, if possible -- how do > you suggest we solve the problem? (Or describe why it's not a problem that > needs to be solved.) > > - Jeff > > -- > GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face > meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of > the board. In that case -- let's try for productive input here, if possible -- how do you suggest we solve the problem? (Or describe why it's not a problem that needs to be solved.) - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
OK, simply, the stated reason for the extraordinary measure (face to face meeting timing) is not a strong one to justify touching the term limit of the board. On 8/9/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The proposal is about doing something out of the ordinary processes > defined > by the bylaws -- that is why we are consulting the membership. Rather than > point out that the situation is extraordinary, please tell us your > feelings > or concerns about the proposal as a member. > > - Jeff > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
