Brad Cowan wrote: [Wed Apr 27 2005, 03:03:57PM CDT]
> > Notice that I didn't say that it was necessarily a good proposal.  I'd
> > like to avoid needing an initial vote on how many trustees are needed,
> > so this proposal deliberately leaves the number of trustees that one
> > wants to vote for up to the individual members.  The threshold of 50%
> > was picked entirely at random.  Better ideas cheerfully accepted!
> 
>   This seems reasonable to me, but I have a few small questions.  Has
> the number of trustees been decided? ie...are we sticking with the
> current number or possibly less?  Also, what about having say 2 year
> terms with elections held every year, essentially splitting up the
> trustees so that there's no possibility that all be voted out at once?
> This would allow a continuous "voice" of the board.

Heh.  My personal opinion is that we have too many trustees right now,
but that's not necessarily shared by anybody else.  In any event, no,
the number of trustees has not been decided.  That's why I wrote my
proposal the way I did, which would allow the voters to effectively
decide that number. (If a voter thinks there should only be five
trustees, she only votes for five.)  Of course, this idea may be
entirely untenable.

As for the idea of having two-year terms, I tend to think that our
turnover is just too high for that.  It's rare for devs to be active for
two years, and a two-year term essentially requires that they be active
for three years (with the first year required for foundation
membership).

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@g.o
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76