I really don't want to add noise to the discussion. But I'm struggling to understand one particular point at Richard rationale. It's surely my fault, but... (please read until the end). On 4/16/24 1:19 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
[...] On 2024-04-16 12:04, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Richard,
Calling 2 members of the board "empty chairs" is insulting and counter productive.
And yet both you and Doug were totally absent from the discussions till now. Discussions which your input could have been useful in.
So it's bad that Patrick and Doug has kept their individual mouths shut.
[...]
I think the best way forward is for the Board to collectively own it's decisions, even bad ones.
So, lets take the recent example.
The minutes made it clear, the Board decided [whatever]
The Board should have collectively owned that. All six of you.
Gerald, Neal, Gertjan, should all have kept their individual mouths shut or fully backed the decision to not act.
So it's bad that Gerald, Neal and Gertjan didn't kept their individual mounts shut. So do I get it right that you (Richard) are defending something like this? a) The board members should ideally keep the golden rule of defending the common board's position that has been minuted. Acting in a cohesive way and keeping their individual opinions for themselves. b) If a couple of board members break that rule and express their personal opinions, then ALL members are expected to do the same and engage in the public discussion as individuals. I believe many of us would agree on (a). I'm personally not so sure about (b). But probably I just misunderstood the whole thing, so sorry in advance for that. I just feel more people could have my same perception and could use some clarification. Thanks a ton! Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Software Solutions