X.Org BoD meeting minutes 2015-07-23

[Peter Hutterer]

On 7/08/2015 21:32 , Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:24:31AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 07:33:43PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:21:55AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>>> On 08/ 6/15 06:10 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps the election committee should be more active in
>>>>> pursuing potential candidates. I suggest several almost every year (i
>>>>> seem to be the only one who even bothers to do so), only this year it
>>>>> actually worked as Egbert actively went and poked those that i had
>>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> Every year I was on the election committee we got nominations from
>>>> multiple people, not just you, and every year we contacted every single
>>>> person nominated, and most of them declined.
>>>
>>> So why did it work so well this year? Why were there (from memory) no
>>> new board members last year when i did not bother to nominate anyone.
>>
>> correlation != causation
>
> Let's get back to the original point.
>
> I asked "Why" twice above, yet noone seems willing to analyse this or to
> provide solid data. I hereby invite the boardmembers who were on the
> elections committees these last few years to disclose how nominations
> went and how nominations were accepted.
>
> Why is the removal of company membership limitation to 25% of the
> board (yes, 1 in 4) deemed to be the only way to improve xorg foundation
> board nominations and acceptance?

where did anyone but you claim that?

 > Why is this now suddenly an issue at a
> time where some fresh blood was finally available for the board? Why are
> other options or this past experience not properly analysed in this
> thread? And, rhethorically, why is this discussion instead being
> actively sidetracked?

the limit is in the bylaws, a change would require a 2/3 member vote.
We're changing the bylaws for the SPI merge anyway, so now is the time 
to get changes in that have been an issue in the past, or that we find 
useful.

It's not an actual issue right now, it is an opportunity to do it now 
with less effort than it would otherwise be. if you would spend the 
couple of minutes reading the IRC log instead of making stuff up from 
the summary alone you would come to realise that.

had the vote earlier this year passed, we wouldn't try to change it 
because it'd be too much effort.

there is no conspiracy, despite your efforts to cast it as one.

> Let's recap, from Peter's email:
>
>> Couple of minor changes discussed to the bylaws. We currently have a
>> maximum of 2 board members from the same company, this has on a few
>> occasions in the ppast been too small. Option to change it to 3
>> discussed (5 yay 1 nay), we'll discuss again when Keith/Egbert are
>> back.
>>
>> This limit was put in place when companies had more influence on
>> X.Org's (technical) direction than now, it is unlikely to be an issue
>> now
>
> First off, this is not at all a minor change. I am amazed that this is
> being downplayed like this.
>
> Secondly, a very nice example of how individual developers are not at
> all independent of their company is the intel driver and mir story of a
> few years ago. "it is unlikely to be an issue now" is not definitely not
> true, which explains the weak formulation of the above sentence. (And
> yes, i know that the intel+mir was about something technical and the
> board is not technical, but that is besides the point here and it is
> futile to further try to divert this topic into something else, again)

no, it's a very important point. the board does not control the 
technical direction. so you can compare apples and oranges all day long, 
but at the end of the day, the board does not control the technical 
direction.

> And besides... The above is like stating "since obama is not
> warmongering as much as some previous presidents once did, perhaps we
> should adjust the constitution to allow him a third term". First off,
> what assurance is there that the next one is not a warmonger? And it is
> a very slippery slope from there to a pure dictatorship.

This comparison has no merit, is quite frankly insulting and not worthy 
of a reply. I'm out of this discussion.

Cheers,
   Peter


>
> At the end of the day: this is the first year that we got a lot of new
> board members, without too much hassle (and i like to thank the guys
> who accepted their nominations and ran, and also those who then took up
> their respective positions). Why does this exactly this change to
> the bylaws have to be pushed through now?
>
> Luc Verhaegen.
>