On 2024-04-16 15:35, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
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 Ancor, this is a great opportunity to better explain my position I believe, agree, support, and think the best route forward is a) If the Board disagree, then I think b) is the only viable model for the community to be able to understand what the heck is going with the Board they elected, and necessary for the community to be able to hold individual Board members to account for their views. I dislike b) as an idea, but I think it's a necessary evil if a) or a variation on a) is not embraced. Given the way the Board's been acting , I think it's possible that the Board won't accept a). We've also had heated discussions on this list before on related topics where something like a) was controversial. So I wanted to put an option b) on the table even if I don't like it. I feel if I didn't propose at least two paths forward people would accuse me of not being constructive, being too demanding, being unfair, being unwilling to compromise, or some other colourful variation. But my preferred path, the best one, the good one, is the one you summarise as a) Does that clear things up?