1 |
Brad Cowan wrote: [Wed Apr 27 2005, 03:03:57PM CDT] |
2 |
> > Notice that I didn't say that it was necessarily a good proposal. I'd |
3 |
> > like to avoid needing an initial vote on how many trustees are needed, |
4 |
> > so this proposal deliberately leaves the number of trustees that one |
5 |
> > wants to vote for up to the individual members. The threshold of 50% |
6 |
> > was picked entirely at random. Better ideas cheerfully accepted! |
7 |
> |
8 |
> This seems reasonable to me, but I have a few small questions. Has |
9 |
> the number of trustees been decided? ie...are we sticking with the |
10 |
> current number or possibly less? Also, what about having say 2 year |
11 |
> terms with elections held every year, essentially splitting up the |
12 |
> trustees so that there's no possibility that all be voted out at once? |
13 |
> This would allow a continuous "voice" of the board. |
14 |
|
15 |
Heh. My personal opinion is that we have too many trustees right now, |
16 |
but that's not necessarily shared by anybody else. In any event, no, |
17 |
the number of trustees has not been decided. That's why I wrote my |
18 |
proposal the way I did, which would allow the voters to effectively |
19 |
decide that number. (If a voter thinks there should only be five |
20 |
trustees, she only votes for five.) Of course, this idea may be |
21 |
entirely untenable. |
22 |
|
23 |
As for the idea of having two-year terms, I tend to think that our |
24 |
turnover is just too high for that. It's rare for devs to be active for |
25 |
two years, and a two-year term essentially requires that they be active |
26 |
for three years (with the first year required for foundation |
27 |
membership). |
28 |
|
29 |
-g2boojum- |
30 |
-- |
31 |
Grant Goodyear |
32 |
Gentoo Developer |
33 |
g2boojum@g.o |
34 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
35 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |