[Members] minutes of XSF Annual Meeting, 2009-10-06

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Oct 7 12:48:51 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/7/09 2:01 AM, Mickaël Rémond wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Le 7 oct. 2009 à 09:47, Will Sheward <will at willsheward.co.uk> a écrit :
> 
>> Mickaël Rémond wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the board election, I know that you already solve the
>>> problem by eliminating the fourth candidate as well (From the meeting
>>> minutes), Nicolas Vérité, which is an odd decision as it is probably
>>> the most proactive user in Europe.
>>
>> I think the only reason the 4th candidate was eliminated was the
>> preference expressed for an odd, rather than even, number of Board
>> numbers. A problem that the generous withdrawl of both yourself and
>> David hasn't really solved as now, in order to keep to an odd number,
>> we have to either stick with 3 Board members or expand to 5 and 'find'
>> someone else to come in along with Nyco.
> 
> Odd numbers to justify odd decision makes sense ;)

Maybe. :)

> Anyway, why did you think you had to decide during the meeting ?

I am not sure why people felt this way. I thought it would be fine to
delay any resolution (which have taken the form of a complete revote),
but the members present felt strongly that we should try to find an
immediate resolution that would result in seating a Board even if that
was only temporary.

> More members should have been able to express their view, no ?

No one expected the meeting to be so momentous. In the past, few members
have attended our meetings in real time. We might want to change that
part of our culture. In any case, the members present did want more
members to express their views, which is why they saw this solution as
only temporary, with a real solution to be worked out among the full
membership.

> Why did the present members think could change the rule with only a part
> of the members being aware of it ? 

Which rule exactly are you referring to? The number of Board members?
The members present understood that the full membership wanted to have a
Board with 5 people on it, but that was impossible given the outcome of
the voting. Temporarily changing the preferred number to 3 was deemed
the best fix in the short term, so that we could seat a board that would
not have more tie votes (as you can see from the logs, this was a big
concern).

> It seems to change the rules on which
> basis they have expressed their opinion.

Again, the members present tried to find a workable but *temporary*
solution. Now it is up to the members and the Board to find a more
lasting solution. In fact the new (temporary) Board has already held a
meeting about this, and Jack Moffitt will be posting to this shortly
about their conclusions.

> Regarding the number I am sure a solution will be found. David might
> chang his mind for example.
> We ar not in hurry. Let time do his work.

I agree.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrM1IMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzR2wCghf3mgkEoLv+pdUgko9jVWnUH
e2wAoMiGmHGsBdb7oL3RTdfEUN+FSUQg
=Bxz/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Members mailing list