Op donderdag 6 september 2018 17:08:37 CEST schreef Jim Henderson:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 15:15:32 +0200, Knurpht-openSUSE wrote:
I'd rather go step by step, and keep the discussion with the community open and ongoing, to get to some well balanced and well documented situation in the end. And well balanced also meaning taking whatever's been suggested in this thread in consideration. I strongly believe that the board cannot do this on their own, i.e. should not be making their own rules to stick to.
And I'm good with a step-by-step approach to improve transparency. That is something that can help prevent the sort of situation you talked about
- and can make it easier to see what pitfalls are there that nobody has
Seeing a plan for that would be good, though.
Since I think that most of what can be said already has been said in this thread, this is my last post here. There's one thing though I haven't read about ( IIRC ):
A different, but IMHO equally valid, option that comes to mind, would be that the Board does not make any decisions at all ( we could hold back info from the minutes, have unverifiable votings and so on ), but instead pushes all decision making to the public area and ask the community to decide by public, named vote on any decision. That would require volunteers to set up a voting procedure on each decision to be made, have other volunteers check the voting setup etc. , an independent secretary that does the minute-taking, an independent minutes checking official, but if that's the desired way of making decisions, finding those people shouldn't be that hard. It would also cover future board elections since anyone can see how each candidate voted in the past on the wiki that will display the voting results, and it would not conflict with the Board's tasks, one of them being "facititate decision making". It would also befefit the "trust but verify" principle.