On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Joel Madero <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I'm wondering if this would cause a "group think" mentality within the BoD.
I know that if a name is public, being the only dissenter might dissuade a
current or future BoD from dissenting.
Dissenting are usually not expressed at the vote level, but usually
during the discussion prior to the vote.
more often than not the vote reflect the consensus...
Ultimately I'm wondering how much
adding names helps the project move forward.
As I said earlier. in a representative system the 'representee' need
to have a way to make an educated decision to choose the ones
The voting record of an incumbent candidate is an important piece of
information with that regard.
I know that we adhere to a very
open policy but with voting, sometimes anonymous really encourages the best
Not withstanding the fact that our statute call for public BoD
meeting, except for limited cases, in any case voting _is_ public.
The information is already mostly there... just not in a form that is
easy for the membership to process.
Some vote occurs online, some other occurs on public conference
call... on rare occasion there can be vote during in-person meeting of
in any case the result of such vote are posted on the ML. The only
proposed difference is that these 'result' be a bit more complete as
to allow the membership
to get a better picture of what their representatives are doing... and
since they do vote for individual and not a 'group', the voting record
of each BoD member is important.
Beside adding the name would also provide a easier, less error prone,
for each BoD member and interested observer, to make sure that the
'minutes' are correct, at least wrt the voting record. (it is easier
to detect that your name is in the wrong column, rather than deduce
that based on the Yeah/Nay count)
And yes... the vast majority of votes are unanimous... that is
expected since most of the votes are not controversial in nature, and
a well functioning BoD would search for a consensus before getting to
a vote... iow function primarily as a consensus based entity not a
'majority rule' entity.
But if that good pattern where to be disrupted in the future, the
Board of Trustee (the members) will have to try to remedy things at
the following election, and again, the voting record in this scenario
would be a useful tool to make an educated decision.
It is better/easier to establish 'good practice' and 'precedent' while
we have well functioning institutions.
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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