Board voting ends today, but...

Daniel Stone daniel at
Fri Feb 19 10:41:43 PST 2010

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 07:28:19PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 05:29:14PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > 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.

They'll be posted when they're posted.

> > 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.

Feel free to bring anything up that you consider relevant after reading
the bylaws.

> > 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.

I agree.

> > 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 meant that, on average, everyone would presumably be happy with the
board, as it reflects the opinion of everyone who voted.  Presumably
most people who didn't vote don't particularly care about the makeup of
the board, and are just as happy either way.

So yes, by virtue of having run an election with a reasonable
participation rate (compared to historical average), I'm saying that the
membership will -- on average -- be happy with the results.

But I guess you knew that.

> 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 
> information.
> 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.

I have my own opinion, as a voter, as to who would best govern the
Foundation, and I assume so do you.  Anything I've done for the
Foundation has been for the good of the Foundation, and not for getting
my mates elected.  I can confidently say that for the entirety of the
outgoing board as well.

> > 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.

And that's fair.  There's no technical role, so I guess it's just if
you're interested in how money is collected and disbursed, essentially.
If people are interested in that and we've failed to give them enough
information to act on it, then yes, that's our failing.  If people
aren't interested in that, then I'm honestly not sure what to say.

> 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?

It's just a shame no-one asked until the elections began, I guess;
certainly having this all sorted out before the election would've made
the whole thing a great deal less complicated.

> 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.

I'm just another member now.  I've nothing to hide, nor did I as a board
member.  The other members are doing their level best to get as much
information as possible out; the reality though is that we all have
dayjobs and numerous other commitments than the Foundation, as I'm sure
you understand from unichrome.  But they're doing their best, and
hopefully this information comes soon.

If it's hugely objectionable, then I'd say a full recall election would
be the best option, providing it gets significant support from the

I think at this point I've said everything I possibly can say, often
several times.  So from here on in, I'm just another interested punter.
Also, it's Friday night, so I'd rather not be staring at mutt; hope you
have a good weekend too.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the xorg mailing list