On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
(1) The most compelling arguments in favour of having appointees as voting board members (as opposed to having them as advisory board members),
I'm not sure what you're asking. I think that both external experts and the community-elected and chapter-appointed Board members should be voting members, if they are to be on the board. If you're asking whether it is useful to have external appointees on the Board at all, I think the answer is quite obvious - we need the level of engagement and expertise, that will not be available if we ask them to be on the advisory board, and I don't think it is likely it would be if they were to no non-decisive board members. Proportions between solely board-appointed and community-nominated people is a different story.
Thanks Dariusz. It's more or less what I was thinking too; a seat on an advisory board is perhaps not attractive enough to really care.
I am glad to hear you are working on a proposal to increase the number of
community/chapter seats on the board (though I personally tend to think that at 2 vs. 3, the chapters are already slightly over-represented, compared to the general community).
Sadly, humans count in full numbers only, so it could be either 1 or 2 in the current system, and 1 is not that many neither :)
Well, you might add a community-selected board member. That would make 2 seats for the chapters, and 4 for the community in general. That seems a healthier proportion.
Moreover, if you increase the community-selected board members to 4, this would ensure that the majority of members (6 out of 11) can trace their presence on the board to the results of a democratic process.
Hey, you could just re-add James, leaving María in place. :) I think the community might welcome that, as a signal of reconciliation.
Andreas