Board voting ends today, but...

Luc Verhaegen libv at
Fri Feb 19 10:28:19 PST 2010

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 05:29:14PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 06:01:38PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > 
> > I believe some things have been asked for already:
> > * minutes or logs.
> Bart is collating his logs, and those will be posted very soon.
> > * details of financial dealings.
> This is being worked on as well, TTBOMK.

While Bart mentioned something on last weeks board meeting 
(, I have not received a 
reply to my email asking for such information. I have not seen anything 
(more) with respect to finances either.
> Well, the bylaws (which were voted on by the membership back in 2006 or
> thereabouts -- I believe you were a member at the time this was voted on
> and approved) state 25%.  If anyone's got any suggestions for improving
> the bylaws, then I'm sure they'd be welcome, and the membership can vote
> on changing the bylaws again.

Ok, maybe this should be considered after we've managed to get all 
necessary information and have had credible elections.

> Cancelling the election would in my view be phenomenally inappropriate:
> if that happened and someone suggested that the board canned the
> election because it didn't like the field, the timing, the way it was
> going, etc, then I would not have any good response to them.

The election schedule was revised a few times, and then the eventual 
election started, without warning, a month later (and very very close 
to, at least for me, a major event like FOSDEMthan even the latest 
schedule. Delaying it even more, so that we can have well informed 
elections, is not going to make much a difference anymore.

> We've all (well, mostly) voted on a board that we're presumably happy
> with by now.  If the membership is deeply unhappy after the election,
> then we can vote for a recall/secondary election.  But cancelling the
> election and continuing indefinitely with the current board is something
> that would make me deeply uncomfortable, and more than anything I think
> smacks of wild impropriety.

You seem to have access to the current election results, and you mention 
that you are "presumably happy with" it now... Hrm.

I am also not for postponing elections indefinitely. I want to know what 
we are voting for, and then see elections happen on the basis of that 

Do you really believe that waiting for relevant information will 
translate into postponing indefinitely? I thought that you just said 
that the relevant information is being actively gathered now.

If this election is supposed to be about getting those people elected 
who will gouvern the affairs of the Foundation best, then this 
information is absolutely essential. If of course, this is just about 
getting your friends elected to the board, then such information is 
absolutely irrelevant.

> You've stated that some people are distressed enough to cancel their
> membership -- so far I'm unaware of anyone who's done so.  If the
> general opinion is that the organisation has been so compromised by
> non-disclosure that this election was not enough, then surely this will
> be borne out by a vote of the members.  As it is, only 54 members out of
> 144 currently active voted in the election (up from 42 last year), and
> the members list is almost entirely silent except around election time.
> It'd certainly be nice if this newfound interest in the Foundation's
> health would be sustained beyond the election.

People are not sure what they should be a member for. This is what 
Maarten stated quite blatantly. I am sure that there are many more X and 
relations contributors who feel the exact same way, but who have not 
spoken up here.

The fact that the members list is entirely silent is of course easily 
explained; there just is nothing to talk about. We have no info on what 
the board does, except for an election from time to time. What do you 
expect people to talk about there, the weather?

And don't worry about sustained interested. Our software development 
model has made us all very adept at filtering information, so reading 
through irclogs is going to be a breeze for many people, and increased 
information is not going to be seen as a burden.

On top, i am interested in what the board does, as long as  what the 
board does is at all relevant to the software i contribute to and on 
helping promote that software and the community around it.

It is this lack of information that has made the board quasi irrelevant, 
and why some people cannot be bothered to even become a member.

Open up, and prove that the Foundation is relevant.

Luc Verhaegen.

More information about the xorg mailing list