| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 2 |
<prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Even at one cycle we'd have a period of |
| 4 |
> time we are down trustees. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It depends on how it were implemented. If we allowed the Trustees to |
| 7 |
continue to make appointments to fill vacancies this would not have to |
| 8 |
be an issue. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As I mentioned earlier I do think it is a legitimate concern that it |
| 11 |
could be demoralizing. Personally I like _reopen_nominations but IMO |
| 12 |
it isn't our biggest problem right now. I'd just encourage Trustees |
| 13 |
(and everyone) to try to be conscious that not everything we want |
| 14 |
necessarily has a mandate behind it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It probably also wouldn't hurt for all of us in the peanut gallery to |
| 17 |
consider that the fact that something ends up on a meeting agenda |
| 18 |
isn't the same as it receiving a majority of votes. Registering |
| 19 |
displeasure is fine, and IMO a good thing to help prevent blunders. |
| 20 |
However, we should keep in mind that the people running these meetings |
| 21 |
don't really have personal discretion to veto agenda topics. Nor does |
| 22 |
it make sense to have an agenda item to discuss whether something |
| 23 |
should go on the agenda. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In my experience most people on Council/Trustees tend to vote more |
| 26 |
conservatively than you might assume from their banter/discussion, |
| 27 |
which IMO is a good thing. I think it is good for leaders to freely |
| 28 |
discuss ideas so that they can get some second opinions on them, |
| 29 |
without having to overly self-censor. If those opinions suggest they |
| 30 |
are bad ideas, they aren't bound to support them. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives