On 3/1/20 9:31 PM, Stasiek Michalski wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 09:22, Axel Braun <axel.braun@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Samstag, 29. Februar 2020, 19:35:59 CET schrieb Sarah Julia Kriesch:
A real leader is thinking about his decisions in such a case. That is not easy. Most important questions are "Why" do I do smoething with "which reasons"? Do I know all point of views? That did not happen here. I was not allowed to explain my point of view. Christian was excluded during most of the discussions, too. The decision does not have any watertight argument. You can call that bossing instead of leading. And that is another argument for stepping down at the right time.
I will not comment your sidekick here. Given the special relation between you and Christian, his move is understandable. Everybody in the board regrets this move
I would kindly ask the board to consider changing the election rules so we don't have situations where the board turns into a telenovela. People with "special relations", whatever the status of that relation, should not exist together on the board. It leads to certain kinds of involvement, which should never ever be a part of the board's dealings.
With the intention of basing the foundation rules on the current ones, do you have a recommended way of adding a rule that would cover this? it kinda gets pretty hard and messy, beyond if people do or don't end up in relationships people may work very closely together for up to 4 years on the board which can lead to really close friendships and people will naturally have a tendency to defend there friends. Beyond that in our current rules we deem that having more then 40% of people from one company forms a conflict situation and don't allow that but is it acceptable for two people on the same team to run together or if someones direct manager is also on the board could that cause a conflict situation? In the end the line between what is and isn't acceptable is often not clear and simple which makes it very hard to formulate into set rules. From my general experience I could say that as some general advice if you think that there is a possibility there could be a conflict of interest with another member of the board its best to not run or for one person to step down if things change while on the board. If I was to have a go at actually drafting something that could be added to make this better I think it would end up being something along the lines of candidates should declare any affiliations / friendships / relationships with other board members or candidates before the voting period commences so that members can take this into account when they vote. Not doing so could be considered "serious misconduct or negligence" which is grounds for removal. But two years is a long time and alot can change in that time and i'm not sure how you'd cover all those cases other then hoping the community has chosen to elect candidates that are smart enough and willing to step back if they can see any potential for a conflict. Being such a grey area anything we would change would need to be exceptionally carefully worded. Having said that i'd love to here feedback on possible proposals with the thought of including it into the election rules or a future foundations constitution. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B