Hello all,
I'd like to express my opinion.
I've been following the messages and it seems clear why the solicitation
to reduce the board it's been talking But I can't understand why this
has to be chosen for the next election.
I see that, as said before, if there was a clear definition of the
quote who=Davyd Madeley
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
quote who=Vincent Untz
I've heard lots of unconvincing arguments as well--on both sides.
But, what is very convincing to me is the fact that it strongly
appears that we don't have 11 motivated people running for the board.
Motivated to do what? To get things done? That should not be
Hi,
So, it's been over 10 days since the start of the thread, and I just
wanted to make sure we hadn't forgotten about it.
There were clearly mixed opinions on this. There were 6 or 7 people in
favour of reducing the size, 6 or 7 people in favour of leaving it as is
or not reducing it.
Hi Dave,
Today at 15:26, David Neary wrote:
I would like to propose, then, that the referendum take place in
October (to allow the vote to happen before the next board
elections). I would like to board to ratify this, and ask the election
committee to put the wheels in motion at our next
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:52:41PM +0200, Anne Østergaard wrote:
Points of importance for the future of the Foundation should not be
decided with 6 votes in favour and 5 against.
For the record, such a situation never happened in the past. There
have been issues where there was a relatively
Dave Neary wrote:
By the way, I'm having trouble taking this mail as anything other than
a personal attack... ...
Dave, for what it's worth I thought Anne raised very valid points here,
and I took the message outside of any personal context. I agree with a
lot of what Anne said (not
Hi Anne,
I added some comments below.
Le dimanche 18 septembre 2005 à 23:52 +0200, Anne Østergaard a écrit :
By the way does the board have an agenda for each meeting? I have never
seen one! I miss this tool.
I believe so (although I'm not on the board ;-)). The agenda is probably
only sent
Le lundi 19 septembre 2005 à 14:16 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit :
Do you feel that you better represent the community's interests when
planning conferences or building teams, Or doing marketing?
I'm not answering the question since I'm unaware of the context.
I just want to highlight the
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:00:30PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 9/14/05, Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:01:38PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
have a referendum on the issue next month.
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 22:53 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 08:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
I'm also in favour of reducing the board size to 7. It recognizes the
reality of how we work. That way of working is very good for lots of
other parts of GNOME, but the board is
On 9/15/05, Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
things done, and to have more contested seats **(provided enough people
decide to run so as to make a
Murray Cumming wrote:...
The fact that we are considering a referendum for this, even though it's
not strictly necessary, proves that we have difficulty reaching
consensus on stuff that can move us forward.
I disagree; this is the sort of important decision that IMO should
require a
Hi,
I +1 holding a referendum on this.
Christian
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:01 +0200, David Neary wrote:
Hi all,
There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
public.
I'm in favour of
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:01 +0200, David Neary wrote:
Hi all,
There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
public.
I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
It sounds like increasing the size of the board by 3 people could
achieve both of the goals that Dave was talking about: to get more
things done, and to have more contested seats (provided enough people
decide to run so as to make a real contest).
___
Hi Dave,
Le mercredi 14 septembre 2005 à 21:01 +0200, David Neary a écrit :
Hi all,
There has been some discussion on reducing the board size on the board,
and the one point which is clear is that this discussion should be in
public.
I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I
Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:22 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 14 septembre 2005 à 21:01 +0200, David Neary a écrit :
I'm in favour of reducing the board to 7 people. I would like to see us
have a referendum on the issue next month.
Just asking for a
Leslie Proctor wrote:
My experience is rather that all board members are
busy members of the
community, so getting people do do things is hard.
If you get 7 persons
instead of 11 you reduce also the amount of
available time from board
members. People running for the board will need more
time
19 matches
Mail list logo
