On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:23:59 +0100, Andreas Raab wrote:
> stephane ducasse wrote:
>> Now a better answer would be that 1/2 or 2/3 of the board should be  
>> renewed every year. This way we make
>> sure that people with fresh energy can contribute. This is a point I  
>> will ask the new board to vote on.
>
> Well, I don't really see how the board could vote on this - if the board  
> is a representative of the community then it's the community who votes  
> on it. And if the community wants "more of the same" it can certainly  
> say so (and, not surprisingly, has in this election). It would be  
> difficult to make arbitrary decisions like requiring that there must be  
> a certain amount of turnaround each year

Not at all. During the two decades that I served in organizations run by  
volunteers, this particular decision was always made by the board and the  
community had to accept it. After all, the board's ob is to serve and if  
it cannot serve, it has to innovate. If it helps one can think along this  
line: we've elected the members of the board, and now they are free to  
make (even tough) decisions, until next election day.

/Klaus

> - as long as people have fun they should be allowed to run, and if they  
> get elected, they get elected!
>
>> I would prefer that if I drop the next person on the list get the  
>> position.
>
> Now *that* is an issue where I have complete trust in the board to come  
> up with a reasonable solution. If the board thinks that the best  
> solution is to co-opt another member, go for it. If the board thinks its  
> best to continue with reduced numbers, go for it. Either way is  
> reasonable and it really depends on the concrete situation.
>
> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>