[Osmf-talk] How to vote to match your view
simon at poole.ch
Thu Dec 4 17:49:16 UTC 2014
Am 04.12.2014 17:30, schrieb Frank Steggink:
> My other main problem with the current proposal is that it leaves room
> for "strategic" planning of GM's where elections can be held. Forgive
> me when I'm wrong on the details, but how I see it is that, with the
> current proposal, it will be possible to plan a GM when some
> (unwanted) board member will be in his 43rd month, so he'll not be
> able for reelection. It also can work out the wrong way for someone
> who has previously been on the board and seeks reelection. What if the
> GM is held in the last month of the period he's not allowed to be
> reelected? Then he needs to wait for another year to be candidate again!
> And no, please don't tell me this won't happen. We're all humans, and
> this is politics, so this will happen sooner or later!
I don't believe that the proposed additions to the articles really make
a big difference on how gameable than the current system, and the
proposed changes leave enough leeway so that there are no mid-term step
downs required. The only real way around potential issues would be to
have fixed dates and terms in eternity which for practical reasons would
not be a good thing.
And in the end: would somebody who considers it a problem that he cannot
immediately stand for re-election as soon as his pause is up, be a
suitable board member in the first place?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the osmf-talk