Hi all!
"Peter Crowther" <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> > From: Cees De Groot
> > All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here.
>
> Speaking entirely personally here, rather than as an election team
> member...
>
> 1) The election process was rushed at the end.
Indeed it was, and we can debate if that was bad or good - but we would
have stepped down as planned in any case, and postponing the vote could
have put us in a vacuum which might have been even worse. But I dunno.
> 2) Candidates were very reticent to come forward with their views.
>
> > Agreed. I'd like the retired members to form a sort of advisory
> > council, chiming in whenever asked or whenever they feel it's
> > necessary. How exactly this will take shape, we'll need to see (for
> > starters, the new emeritii need to accept the position ;-))
>
> Co-opting useful people onto committees has a long and distinguished
> history. If it is done for the SqF board, then in my view:
>
> - The people should be fully engaged with the board at all times, not a
> parallel board;
>
> - The board discussions should be open, to avoid any suggestion of
> favour, nepotism and so on;
>
> - The co-opted people should not have voting rights for the same reason.
>
> There were some unpleasant scenes at a standards body a couple of years
> ago when invited experts were given votes on a working group and forced
> through a major change to a standard.
I was actually just envisioning a simple mailinglist where we "collect"
the former board members which the current board can use to get advice
or simply to get answers about things in the past or whatever. The
former board members were not meant to have *any* other access
whatsoever compared to any "regular" member of squeak-dev.
regards, Göran
Locked
