[Osmf-talk] How to vote to match your view
steggink at steggink.org
Thu Dec 4 20:21:54 UTC 2014
On 4-12-2014 18:49, Simon Poole wrote:
> 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.
Or no term limits :)
> 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?
Well, there is still the potential for gaming the system, because fixed
dates are not practical as you say. It's not that the person who is
affected considers it to be a problem, although I can very well imagine
that he thinks it is unfair. It's human, and having emotions doesn't
disqualify someone as a board member. It's about the whole set of skills
and personality of a potential candidate.
More information about the osmf-talk