[Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)

[Milos Rancic]

On 06/24/2011 07:57 PM, Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com wrote:
> I also sat on NomCom during this time period. I cannot agree that Matt's appointment was more problematic than Stu's or Jan-Bart.  Frankly all the appointed board seats are problematic, and I cannot understand how you can focus on Matt's appointment alone as a significant issue, nor how you reach the conclusion that disorganization on the part of the board had any significant role in the problems of appointed board seats.
> 
> I am going to be frank and clear about how the issue appears to me: The bylaws, in regard to appointed board seats, are unredeemably flawed.
> 
> I find it offensive that any appointed Board Member should be singled out and undermined merely because an impossible appointment process failed to offer them greater legitimacy. All the appointments fell so far short of the outlined process that I believe concluding one appointment to be less acceptable than the others is impossible to objectively judge. Yes Bishakha's seat was settled with more active discussion from NomCom than any of the others.  However the outlined process for appointed seats is not at all what occurred.  I suggest you re-read the by-laws (pay attention to the time-line as well), consult your notes and dates, and honestly tell me how the board might have believed that NomCom had any hope fulfilling the official process at the time of Matt's appointment.

That's other issue and I am not a legal expert.

My logic behind suggesting to keep current members was probability that
changing them would bring more instability in already unstable Board at
that time. Board is today more stable than it was at that time and it is
good that this issue has been opened, so we can go further.