Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws


Hiho,

Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-10 15:41)

        I added my comments in [MMEEKS: foo !] type brackets as David has done
himself; directly into the wiki; there were a few things that didn't
belong in there though:

        Firstly - I'm really hopeful reading this; it seems we're getting
somewhere rather good with these bylaws, and I'm nearly happy :-)

  which in itself is a great achievement  :-p

        I also really liked the Membership section preamble, most helpful;
I guess we also need some spiel about the relative dislike of formal
'Roles' in the project in the Member's Roles.

I don't see the need for that, and find it somehow misplaced in apiece with more then 3000 words explaining roles and responsibilities.

        I do not believe we should specify exactly four paid employees - I
suggest we specify the two [ though even those I think are

  No problem to let the number four out, rather specify the roles.

implementation details ], and do not mandate that they -must- be paid.

Hmm, if one has to conduct the work that the BoD wants to be done in the way the BoD /ED says it has to be done, I'dd rather have them paid (is employed) then being volunteers.

        With regard to Sponors - GNOME had the practise of allowing like minded
non-profits (such as Debian / SPI, the FSF etc.) to join the advisory
board without paying fees - and they have had a very positive effect
over the lifetime of that project. I suggest we add a similar section.

I find this an interesting suggestion, but would rather investigate it the next year or so, seeing how our AB works, who are are core affiliates etc.

        Then of course there is the voting, which is still rather complex:

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 00:37 +0100, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
"... the nine candidates having won the highest number of votes are
deemed to have been elected ..."

If all nine Directors are elected at once, how should the "renewal by
half each year" work?

        Quite - I'd really like everyone to be elected at once - it simplifies
the work of the MC, and the structure of the community. I don't know
that we expanded on the role of deputies in the document either
incidentally - but hopefully they are another asset for ensuring
continuity ...

Ah, this interesting long standing subject :-) Having read the various ideas/comments, I support the idea of ... All seats are voted for each year in combination with no limit to the number of times one serves on the BoD.

(If there is a limit to the number of times, I would vote for a different scheme, length.)

Regards,
Cor
--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.