[Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community
Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 27 22:28:27 UTC 2008
Birgitte SB wrote:
> I don't know if others are simply not reading the situation as I have been but I though I would share my impressions here. The restructuring strikes me as being a difficult compromise. Overall I am happy with it considering what I imagine some of the extreme positions to have been. I don't believe anyone went into board meeting anticipating the outcome that was just announced. My impressions from reading this list for years is that most people had much more extreme positions. I imagine that some want something close to a 10-member board with 3 traditionally elected members and others wanted close 80% traditionally elected members. Some people want to have Jimmy's seat to be "community elected", while others feel doing that would be stealing a seat from the community since there is little c
> hance anyone could beat him. I imagine the "chapter election" scheme was a creative compromise to allow the majority of seats some insisted to be from the community
> while addressing the distrust others have for the results of our traditional community elections (i.e. Danny was nearly elected last run and that obviously cannot sit well with some board members).
> If there had been a large discussion on board restructuring before the meeting I doubt that the current compromise would have even been on the table for us to discuss. And let us not forget the numerous threads on board restructuring from Florence which received little or no responses. If there had been a discussion beforehand, I think it would have focused on extreme positions rather than anything close to a workable compromise. And most board members would not share on this list what issues are deal-breakers for them, so we would be unable to offer anything specific for a proposal that would having any hope of passing. And I think in general, community concerns over the board have been discussed enough in the past to ensure the board was not uniformed.
> On the other hand, I do not see why the board cannot treat the current proposal as in a "community comment period" right now before making the actual amendment to the by-laws. For one thing I would suggest that the "expertise" seats constitute "up to four seats" rather require four seats to always be filled.
> Birgitte SB
Your email is pretty much on the spot Birgitte !
More information about the foundation-l