- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:41:58 -0500
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 12/12/2014 03:36 PM, Wayne Carr wrote: > > On 2014-12-12 12:23, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 12/12/2014 12:37 PM, Olle Olsson wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, /post factum/, "I can live with the proposal" -- if I still >>> remember what it was ;-) >>> The phrase is, I believe, "I agree". >> >> To be clear, I don't agree with Dan's proposal, but I can live with it. >> >> By contrast, I do agree with what Chaals has outlined[1]. There are >> even a few ways I would go further. >> >> At the ASF, all board seats are up for reelection each year. There are >> no seats reserved for nomination by the Directors. Any stakeholder in >> the ASF can nominate themselves or as many people as they like. The >> ASF uses the term "Member" for stakeholder, the closest equivalent at >> the W3C would at a minimum include all chairs. We also use a >> proportional voting system, like Chaals has advocated. >> >> With a proportional voting system coupled with every seat being up for >> election each year means that any influence a company could attempt to >> get would be temporary at best. > > With so small a group, every seat up every year does sound good. I don't > think we need to worry about continuity - that may not always be good. I > also agree with the list of improvements Chaal's suggested. At the ASF, we worried about continuity, and then found it hasn't been a problem in practice. Generally we have a minimum of 7 returning board members, and often the "new" ones were previously a member of the board. http://communityovercode.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/asf-board-chart2013.png - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 20:42:23 UTC