X.Org BoD meeting minutes 2015-07-23

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 04:36:45PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 6 August 2015 at 16:23, Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be> wrote:
> >
> > In your top-post, you completely ignored the other statements i made.
> 
> Bear this one in mind later.
> 

...

> > But that is besides the point. The issue is not the limitation, the
> > issue is the fact that no-one besides me seems to have bothered to
> > nominate new board members before, and that usually the election
> > committee couldn't be bothered to encourage the nominated members to
> > take care of the few formalities needed.
> 
> I'm not particularly sure why it's all entirely incumbent on the
> board. If the membership can't collectively be bothered to click four
> buttons on what was essentially an existential issue (SPI), despite
> any amount of board publicity and prodding, then you can't pin the
> blame for people being unable/unwilling to throw substantial amounts
> of their time on the board.

I would argue that the spi failure was another symptom of the same root 
cause.

> > If that is not solved, it will remain just as difficult as before to get
> > new boardmembers to participate, and we lose a safeguard for which there
> > is no sufficient argument for removal.
> 
> 'No sufficient argument'? Bart made it, but you just decided to ignore
> it in your bottom-post. I guess quoting style isn't a guarantee of
> much anything.

Like what? I read:
* nobody cares about X.org anymore because nobody cares about X.
* board membership is oh so hard.

I chose to ignore the first, and simply did not buy into the second.

I did however restate that, given the overwhelming success of getting 
new board members this year, perhaps this success should be analysed for 
its merits, instead of trying to detract from something clearly 
unrelated.

Luc Verhaegen.