The board, nominees.

[Leo Franchi]

On 1 Feb 2009, at 08:42, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
>>
>> Option: Lydia Pintscher
>> If anyone would like to append a name to this list, you have until  
>> tomorrow
>> to do so. I'll start the vote tomorrow night or so. The vote will  
>> last 1
>> week (unless someone would like it longer?).
>> cheers,
>
> 09:24 < markey> uhm guys, the whole voting stuff
> 09:24 < markey> don't we first need candidates?
> 09:24 < markey> who declare what they actually want to do?
> 09:24 < markey> I thought that's a prerequesite for voting anyone
> 09:24 < markey> e.g. who wants to become Treasurer?
> 09:25 < Mamarok> and know what structure we are going to have exactly
> and what tasks are needed to be covered
> 09:25 < markey> looks to me like lfranchi is kinda skipping this step
> 09:26 < markey> imho it would make sense to do that first
> 09:27 < markey> instead of voting a bunch of people, and then letting
> them figure out what they actually do
> 09:28 < markey> the way it would happen now, we could vote 5 people,
> among which is noone with the slightest clue about financials
> 09:28 < markey> i.e. no Treasurer
> 09:28 < markey> what then?
> 09:28 < markey> read a book on Treasuring?
> 09:29 < markey> I would say we want Greg Meyer to stay treasurer, if
> he's up for the task [1]
> 09:29 < markey> the man is a professional
> 09:29 < markey> and has been doing this job for amarok for 5 years or
> so, very successfully
> 09:30 < markey> (Greg is a professional accountant)

First of all, yes Greg is an accountant. He has done an awesome job  
and I am really thankful that he has stayed onboard even when (it  
seems) he is quite busy.

We've  been talking about this for 3 months now. We have not set up  
the board to be designated with certain positions. You have had  
innumerable chances to provide input on how we wanted to do this (did  
i mention that  you were on the transition committee?) and this is the  
first time that this has come up. The board is 5 people who vote on  
whether or not to give funding to certain proposals, and maybe take  
care of legal things if something comes up. I don't see the particular  
value of having 5 individual "roles" for board members to be (what  
would they be? secretary? treasurer? we need 3 more...)

Also, our "treasurer" is basically the SFC (they are  professional  
lawyers, accountants, and tax experts). They are the ones who actually  
have the money, and where our money comes from. So someone on the  
board will need to interact with them and work with them. However,  
they do speak english, which makes it much easier for a normal board  
member to be the one doing the task. That said, if Greg is a member of  
the board and (him willing) he ends up doing that part of things, that  
sounds great also.

Anyway in other news, we have a request to be a voting  member so the  
original vote timeline is back on schedule. The current vote on a new  
member will continue until Friday the 6th, after which the board vote  
will begin. So this also gives us another week to discuss this.

leo

---
Leo Franchi				(650) 704 3680
Tufts University 2010

lfranchi at kde.org
leonardo.franchi at tufts.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20090201/17e02e82/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20090201/17e02e82/attachment.sig