On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Cornelius Schumacher wrote: | On Tuesday 18 March 2008 02:15:58 Francis Giannaros wrote: |> At the moment I prefer the membership only method because it's the |> simplest and is only really problematic in theory if the board is |> corrupt and unfairly give out membership in order to further their |> cause. In fact, this is pretty much the last premise I would ever |> accept as a possibility in the argument. Perhaps making the membership |> process even more transparent could help here, and I'd be willing to |> listen to any ideas about that. -snip-
Now if you mean for the future, pretty much the same problems apply. Shall we also vote for a membership committee ? And create two boards, more or less ? As the next board will be elected, won't they have enough legitimacy and trust to do that on their own ? (or at least determine a membership committee themselves)
What about enlarging the group of voters step by step? The current board has been appointed by Novell. Why not elect the next board "only" out of the group of members? This definitely gives the next board more legitimation, is a step in the right direction and is simple to do. And as goal for the future set up a process/election commitee to enlarge the group of voters to the group of "long time committed SuSE / OpenSuSE users" like Richard (MQ) (we can't afford losing this group) and to "members + non-members members vouch" Best M
cheers
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management Email: michl@suse.de Phone: +49 911 74053-376 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org