| 1 |
On July 17, 2020 4:41:30 PM EDT, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>Team, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>The responses so far raise a further questions. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>The Foundation currently has 74 members, not all of whom can serve as |
| 7 |
>trustees. |
| 8 |
>The board consists of 5 members. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>It follows that the board must consist of about 7% of the membership. |
| 11 |
>I'll go on to suggest that 7% is an unreasonably large proportion of |
| 12 |
>the membership |
| 13 |
>required to serve on the board of our own legal entity. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>As supporting evidence, I'll cite the lack of competition for seats on |
| 16 |
>the board |
| 17 |
>over the last 12 years. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>How do the candidates that favour maintaining our own legal entity |
| 20 |
>intend to attract |
| 21 |
>a) more members? |
| 22 |
>b) members willing and able to serve as trustees? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I believe targeting the major mailing lists like Matthew suggested is a good way to drive membership up. Additionally, a PR campaign to let users know what the foundation is. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
By doing so, we can inform the general user base of what role the foundation plays and let them know where we stand financially. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As a side note, developers are told about the foundation and to seek membership once they are onboarded. Most users, AFAIK, won't discover the foundation unless they "happen upon it" through research or Wiki's. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Finally, we may want to revisit the requirements for membership. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives