Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have > been invested much better. I think that's probably true, but I strongly disagree with your examples. I also think that with such high expectations, we can beat ourselves up pretty badly even when we do great things. What follows on from that is bitterness, defensiveness, and a dysfunctional group of people. We could have done a lot better with debriefs and general meeting conversation to avoid some of this. > What is left from the 10th anniversary? Imagine if some of that time would > have been put in a Boston Summit planning. I've explained this a few times now, but I'll do it again here: The Board could not have done significantly more about the Boston Summit to avoid or avert the crisis we had. It's that simple. Due to unrepresentative and ill informed noise on board-list, it has been turned into a much bigger issue that it ever was. At precisely the time when the Boston Summit was ready to announce and work could begin on the (much more interesting) detail of catering, what we were going to do, how we were going to run it, and calling for local volunteers to run the show, our apparently booked venue pulled the plug. This started a lengthy period of going through other channels to get the venue back, trying for a different venue with the same organisation, looking at different dates and hosts, and finally, a last-minute splurge on a venue as we were down to the wire and couldn't feasibly change the dates. It was not a lack of time, planning or local volunteers that set off this chain of events... It was a *horribly* timed disappearance of the most important piece of the Summit's organisational puzzle: The venue. If there's no venue, there's no Summit. Of course, massive thanks go to Zana and Owen for pulling it all together for a very successful Summit despite the roadblocks and challenges. In the end, the Board only received one complaint about the Summit, and that was before it was held, and by someone who did not go to it. (If anyone *does* have complaints about the Summit, please mail the Board!) I am more (personally) disappointed with the 10th anniversary execution and results than those of the Boston Summit. > How much time did we put in aligning the election period with GUADEC? > Imagine if instead we had been dealing with this poisoned OOXML > discussion. It took *one* Board member's time and leadership to pursue the term length bylaws change (in addition to discussion among members and the time of the membership committee to run the vote). This is a very important and worthy change, which will have a positive impact from 2009 onward - that's a long time away, but we had to change it now or it would languish until the 2010 term! Given that this has come up nearly every term I've been on the Board, I regard actual execution on this issue as a great success of this term. It would have taken *one* Board member's time (and a bit of review) to ship a timely announcement and clarification when we joined ECMA and TC45-M. It would have created an outburst itself, with mildly different properties to what we're experiencing now -- unless we had done a *spectacular* job with the messaging, it would've been "GNOME announces support for OOXML". I have been dealing with the shrill voices for days now, so I might sound a bit rankled on this front. ;-) Different people were responsible for these tasks, there was no substantial cross-over in time or topic, so they're basically incomparable. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "And the only time I met George W Bush, he said to me, 'Hey Mike! Go find real work.' Of all people!" - Michael Moore ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
Quim Gil wrote: > Hi, > > Things I have learned during this time at the board: > > 1 - Voting busy candidates is risky if not counterproductive. > 2 - Running for election when you are busy is risky if not counterproductive. > 3 - Seven members is what you need to run efficiently a board. > 4 - Even a board of busy members can be a good board, but needs to > concentrate on the essentials. > 5 - You concentrate on the essentials by *not doing* other things, > either because you delegate, you drop or you don't even start new > things. > 6 - It is difficult to point out publicly and even internally when > something/someone is wrong concentrating on the essentials, > delegating, dropping, starting new things. We are (too?) respectful > with each other. Agree with everything Quim has said, and very much my observations this year. What I've mentioned previously, is that sometimes the board has too great an expectation on what it can done - and in reality, it did very, very well this year (though that's largely thanks to the other busy board members). I continue to believe that 7 is a good number, providing you get the right 7 people. > I feel that we at the board have failed integrating his voluntarism in > a delegation. I still wonder what has failed and why though. All the > elements were in place: a Legal area in the board with 2 people > responsible, public and private mailing list, relatively regular > contact with lawyers and people around legal matters, regular presence > of legal related topics in the board meetings and agenda... Should I > make a conclusion I would probably end up thinking that personal > differences had more weight than they should, but who knows. I was one half of that board rep for Legal. Unfortunately this year has been particularly busy and I've not been able to focus enough on board activities. Apologies. FWIW, I'll not be going for the board again - there are many more enthusiastic people to hand over the baton. Glynn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
Hi, Things I have learned during this time at the board: 1 - Voting busy candidates is risky if not counterproductive. 2 - Running for election when you are busy is risky if not counterproductive. 3 - Seven members is what you need to run efficiently a board. 4 - Even a board of busy members can be a good board, but needs to concentrate on the essentials. 5 - You concentrate on the essentials by *not doing* other things, either because you delegate, you drop or you don't even start new things. 6 - It is difficult to point out publicly and even internally when something/someone is wrong concentrating on the essentials, delegating, dropping, starting new things. We are (too?) respectful with each other. In fact 6 is more complex: you can point when you are not inside, if you are inside you can't point. Because you are outside you don't have all facts, which makes difficult to point accurately, effectively. Because you are inside you have more facts, but this makes difficult to point issues because you put someone and yourself in evidence. Breaking respect in exchange of efficiency isn't easy - probably not even appropriate in an organization of volunteers. Full stop. If Luis runs for election I'll vote him, no doubt about this. He has been pinging and pushing on legal matters as a champion. I feel that we at the board have failed integrating his voluntarism in a delegation. I still wonder what has failed and why though. All the elements were in place: a Legal area in the board with 2 people responsible, public and private mailing list, relatively regular contact with lawyers and people around legal matters, regular presence of legal related topics in the board meetings and agenda... Should I make a conclusion I would probably end up thinking that personal differences had more weight than they should, but who knows. The board hasn't been proactive enough delegating again, that's my feeling. Because we don't want to delegate? I don't think so. The problem starts when people is lacking time to assume the most basic responsibilities and feels overwhelmed only to follow the basic routines. If you have been into the Art of Delegating before you know the paradox: in theory delegating will let you do more things in less time, in practice the process of delegating takes time in itself - which is a trap when people feel like not having time. Is the 7 member board the root of the problem? I strongly disagree. I think the current board of 7 has been extremely efficient in the first half of the year considering the total amount of personal time invested. I bet a board of more people couldn't beat that. The second half is being more dramatic,. and it is painful to reckon that many deep issues could have been avoided or at least dealt with more properly if all the board members could have been around with some time available for collaboration and quick response. Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have been invested much better. What is left from the 10th anniversary? Imagine if some of that time would have been put in a Boston Summit planning. How much time did we put in aligning the election period with GUADEC? Imagine if instead we had been dealing with this poisoned OOXML discussion. Of course this is easy to say now, the problem is always to foresee things before they happen. This is an art that can be better performed having more time and calm in our minds, btw. And even if you foresee issues there is still that problem of being difficult to point them out without being not as respectful as we use to be. -- Quim Gil /// http://flors.wordpress.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
Le dimanche 04 novembre 2007 à 01:27 +1100, Jeff Waugh a écrit : > I suggest you > take a gander at the Code of Conduct, and figure a more constructive > way to contribute to the community. Wow .. implying Alan Cox isn't a "good" contributor to the community sounds weird. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> I pointed out behaviour that I thought was inappropriate and unproductive. So did I ... > I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct So do I ... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> As for "trashing you", it seems any comment about the boards actions or > activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with > yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language > attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt. I pointed out behaviour that I thought was inappropriate and unproductive. Given that it wasn't particularly relevant to myself (but highly relevant to my corporate responsibility with the Board), your attempts to discredit me and my comments are similarly inappropriate and unproductive. I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct, and figure a more constructive way to contribute to the community. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "Instead you're doing circle jerks with the Care Bears of Censorship." - Siduri on Slashdot ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> will believe it. Not a great way to encourage respectful discussion on this > list, Nor is putting in strange references to ultimatums off private lists. That makes it very hard to follow, so thanks for explaining where it came from. As for "trashing you", it seems any comment about the boards actions or activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> > So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling > > back on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is > > not a productive way of fixing the problem. > > "unsympathetic, dramatic criticism" would be "telling it as it is" "of the > Board" would be "blaming Jeff" Luis hasn't blamed me. On either occasion of your nasty replies, in fact! > "ultimatums" has me baffled given all the Luis said about getting the job > done whatever it took. Unfortunately, this refers to a discussion on board-list (which I didn't realise, as I've been reading my mail weirdly due to being without laptop power adapter for a few days). Though it didn't broach confidence, I apologise for bringing board-list issues across to foundation-list. > Can you translate that particular bit of newspeak Jeff, as I can't work > out how to make sense of your comments with respect to Luis offer. I suppose if you keep referring to anything I say as 'newspeak', someone will believe it. Not a great way to encourage respectful discussion on this list, and I don't really see the point besides trashing me personally. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 What do you get when you cross a web server and a hen? Apoache. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling back > on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is not a > productive way of fixing the problem. "unsympathetic, dramatic criticism" would be "telling it as it is" "of the Board" would be "blaming Jeff" "ultimatums" has me baffled given all the Luis said about getting the job done whatever it took. Can you translate that particular bit of newspeak Jeff, as I can't work out how to make sense of your comments with respect to Luis offer. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago. We chose to have a Board member as liaison to the Legal team, which was very clearly delegated the responsibility to provide legal support and advice to the Foundation. This is the same model as other teams, but as the legal team is new and doesn't have a well-defined leadership/sustainability model (as, say, the release team does), it could do with a lot more shepherding. It was only clear to us very recently that the current liaison was not doing this effectively. The only reason it became clear to us is that our own goals were not being met, not as a result of feedback from the legal team itself. So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling back on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is not a productive way of fixing the problem. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 "Creative thinkers make many false starts, and continually waver between unmanageable fantasies and systematic attack." - Harry Hepner ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that > > delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of > > thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the > > board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help out have been > > invited, much less encouraged. > > I have personally tried, and certainly taken legal issues to legal-private > as a matter of delegation (and only received one response, btw), For what it is worth I have exactly zero mails from you to legal-private in my archives; I see two that went to legal-list[1] while I was moving and preparing for one of the more stressful weeks of my life.[2] Given that Anne is the coordinator for the list, you might ask her why it was not followed up on. One of my goals if/when I become leader of the legal work will be to ensure that every such thing is followed up on by *someone*, be it me, one of our pro-bono counsels, or other interested volunteers. I certainly don't want to do it all myself, nor am I qualified to do so, but I will work my ass off to make sure that I don't block or squander the work of others, and that if for some reason the work *can't* be done, the board is at least told promptly of that. > but I think > there is an issue of... domain-specific responsibility... involved that has > not created or encouraged an active team around legal work. That's a bummer, > and I think the extreme business of other Board members has contributed to > no one else picking up that ball. I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago. I knew I was strapped, but I specifically said that if no one else could do it, I could do it. The board turned me down, but yet, no one else has apparently done it, and no one reached out to me to say 'hey, we realize we screwed up and no one can do this, can you help out again?' That was intensely frustrating to me. Luis [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/legal-list/2007-August/msg8.html [2] http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/08/14/back-in-new-york/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
> I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that > delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of > thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the > board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help out have been > invited, much less encouraged. I have personally tried, and certainly taken legal issues to legal-private as a matter of delegation (and only received one response, btw), but I think there is an issue of... domain-specific responsibility... involved that has not created or encouraged an active team around legal work. That's a bummer, and I think the extreme business of other Board members has contributed to no one else picking up that ball. (Sorry I'm not being more specific, but I have to figure out if/how I can be during this election cycle.) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "Linux continues to have almost as much soul as James Brown." - Forrest Cook, LWN ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again. > > > > If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and > > secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on > > the board would necessarily have prevented this particular problem, but > > I'd like to think I would have at least screamed very loud. > > That's rocking good news. More warm bodies on the Board with time to spare > (or a very particular focus, plus the usual oversight and representation) is > a very welcome thing, and it would be great to have you on the Board again. > > A related issue: I think we've pretty much shown that the seven person Board > thing is a bit of a failure. Even if you're not elected or didn't run, we > could appoint you to the Board for this function. :-) We ought to consider > adding a couple of people to the Board. I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help out have been invited, much less encouraged. Or to put it another way- I'm running because delegation appears to have failed, not because the 7-person board has failed. > So much for being away for five years. :-) I never said five, I said three. ;) Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
