[Foundation-l] About transparency
derrick.farnell at gmail.com
Fri Dec 28 18:51:24 UTC 2007
> What mechanisms do we have in place where we could consult with the whole
None as far as I am aware - which is my complaint! :-)
But there are already mechanisms for the community to elect board members,
and of course decide the content of projects, so why not also for every
other decision? There could be an online location for such debates (the
Foundation wiki?), which would be followed by a vote. Even if only a small
percentage of the community takes part in such debates and vote, that would
still be hugely more people than the 8(?) on the board - and the point is
that any member can at least in theory get involved, and have a vote. I've
been an anonymous contributor for years, but am new to this list - has the
community actually every agreed to the board growing from merely being an
unwelcome legal necessity , as described in the piece in my earlier post? As
the author wrote:
> The first priority of the Board is to insure compliance with all
> applicable laws.
> The second priority, perhaps, should be to create in practice, to whatever
> extent possible, the sort of governance structure we would have adopted if
> the current structure had not been imposed upon us as a matter of law.
Did the community ever agree to abandon this aspiration?
More information about the foundation-l