[Osmf-talk] Upcoming Special General Meeting Opinions?
toffehoff at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 01:18:49 UTC 2014
Van: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
On 12/3/2014 11:05 AM, Henk Hoff wrote:
During the 2 years that Simon was chairperson, I have never heard of him
that this was a problem. And now we need to do immediately this "for the
sake of the Foundation"? I really don't get it.
Term limits were first raised extensively in the recent election.
So, question remains: why need to do it now "for the sake of the
Foundation"? Why do we need to vote on them now instead on the next AGM? And
have a proper discussion about it in the meantime. What is the problem it
tries to solve? Is that actually a problem? Does the proposed solution solve
this problem? Is there an alternative solution which is better?
Especially with this unbalanced proposal. It's written to shut people out,
not to give new people a chance. It's written when emotions were running
high; never a good moment to do these things.
Since you are dissatisfied with how SR1 and SR2 implement term limits,
specifically how would you change them?
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it".
Kate, Kathleen, Dermot and me have all mentioned that this resolution does
not fix the problems we currently have. When I'm interpreting Olivers spares
responses right, he too.
Yes, we seen a huge debate with lots (false) accusations and innuendo around
the time of the elections. It has hurt the project massively. And it still
goes on. Comments like ". it is very likely that the board will implement
placebo limits that only serve to pacify their electorate and have no real
effect." is just plain old FUD. And it is especially disturbing since it's
coming from a former chairman.
Like I mentioned before: my advice is: vote no to these resolutions. Start a
proper investigation into the problems that have been manifested in the
board in order to come up with a durable solution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk