| 1 |
On 17/06/18 03:29, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Having these positions that are hard to fill but which legally have |
| 3 |
> all kinds of power is also a source of risk, because it basically |
| 4 |
> means that almost anybody can end up in one of these positions simply |
| 5 |
> by running for them unopposed. If it is true that the Trustees can |
| 6 |
> effectively override the Council today, then what good is it in having |
| 7 |
> a vigorous debate with 20 people running for 7 council slots, if 3 |
| 8 |
> random people get elected to the Trustees unopposed (or lightly |
| 9 |
> opposed) and can just overturn their decisions at will? Shouldn't we |
| 10 |
> be having the healthy/vigorous competition for the positions that |
| 11 |
> wield the most power? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
My synopsis from the peanut gallery, is that everyone wants the power, |
| 14 |
with none of the responsibility that conventionally comes with it. Add |
| 15 |
to this, some developers have some restrictions as to their involvement |
| 16 |
with certain types of organisation, and you end up with the stupid |
| 17 |
"two-headed monster" that we see today. |
Archives