Le 20/03/2020 à 12:31, Richard Brown a écrit :
Continuing the idea of this vote of no confidence with an assumption we'd ever have enough candidates to replace the current Board is foolish in my view.
why was this rule setup then? why would a rule be unusable and an other be usable? I'm not in favor of a removal of present board. but I'm pretty sure this very discussion is what could bring us *more* candidates. lack of candidates may be the result of board work being underestimated and uninteresting (not to say it's true!) I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how a "no-confidence" vote can be separated from a "new board" vote. At the same time, we have a case where the rule that say that some board member that resignate can't be candidate on the next election is very counter productive... me, I don't want present board members to resign. We may have one voter (to replace one board member), then discuss how we can manage a similar next crisis. and, by the way, who is in charge to decide to organize the check to know if 20% of the member want a no-confidence vote? may be we should add some delay for the discussion on such question for the future? can we go ahead? thanks jdd -- http://dodin.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org