| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:30 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> So you are basically saying a conflict of interest can happen and when |
| 3 |
> it does, everyone will actually realize it and also act appropriately. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Well, if people don't do that, then you're up the creek no matter what |
| 7 |
system of governance you come up with. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
SOMEBODY has to make the final decision, and they can always have a |
| 10 |
conflict of interest. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Unless half the council is in on the original offense, it really only |
| 13 |
makes a difference if it is a close call. So, avoid doing things that |
| 14 |
would tick off half the council and you should be fine. :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This is no different than a majority of trustees being able to sell |
| 17 |
the Foundation to your least favorite IT vendor. If you're going to |
| 18 |
vote a bunch of untrustworthy individuals into office, then you might |
| 19 |
not like the result. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't see a practical alternative. The kinds of skills that you |
| 22 |
need to be a decent Trustee, Council member, or Comrel member overlap |
| 23 |
significantly. We aren't exactly a huge organization. So, we either |
| 24 |
have to accept overlap, or put people into these roles that we might |
| 25 |
otherwise not want to. There is also QA and Infra to consider - do we |
| 26 |
not allow anybody to be on more than one of these teams? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ridh |
Archives