catzwolf_ wrote:
Quote:
It is clear that DJ does not wish to entertain a project manager as we the communtity have asked for. It is clear that the pruposed structure that the community differs from the one that DJ wishes to put in place.
Please don't use this "community" thing to justify your opinion. Please show me a poll where we asked the question and the community voted and agreed to it. You might have a different opinion than I do, and I respect it, but it's
your opinion, and not the one of the whole community till we have an official poll.
Quote:
It is also clear that The council do not have the full mandate to carry out that it states due to a direct conflict with another body with Xoops, mainly the foundation.
Why doesn't have the mandate? According to the
original proposal which I think was accepted (and I don't see any official record that the rules have been changed), the Foundation members should be selected by the Council, so for me the Council has the mandate.
And why do you assume that it is a council's fault? Maybe it's the Foundation's fault? Maybe there are people there who just want to hang on to their power? To be honest, as long as we don't have elections for the Foundation and they appoint themselves (
see here)
Quote:
How prospective members are selected, is up to the members themselves. They can -if they want- organize an election to get candidates, and can even decide prior to this that the elected candidate(s) will become members of the Board, but this is not standard practice.
I cannot support self-appointed "Chairman" Herko on that. Please note that this is a clear departure from
Herko's original post:
Quote:
However, this can be solved by replacing 'selected by' with 'recommended by' the Steering Committee (what I called the Council in my proposal). The Foundation can add regulations about this recommendation, to make sure it happens properly, but legally only the seated directors can select new members of the board.
And if the Steering Committee and community allows me to, I'd like to remain as Chairperson of the Foundation for a longer period. Both for practical reasons, and because I'd enjoy that. Since the Foundation and Steering Committee have clearly defined roles (the STeering Committee effectively managing the project, the Foundation managing the assets), I think that fits with the current situation.
But, only if you agree.
Even if FAQ answer might be related to the legal requirements, it should be mentioned there that the nominations will be recommended by the Council (aka Steering Team)! Otherwise it smells like a dishonest power grab. Thankfully we have the records so we can keep them honest
The only person as a Chairman I could accept w/o voting would be Mr. Ono who started XOOPS. Everybody else should be for a vote.
If Herko would say: "We are creating the Foundation and in order to start, I'll be the temporary Chairman for the next 6 months till we have a structure in place, and then we'll have an election" I would be OK. But the way it went, with Herko self-appointing himself for life, the lack of financial statements for a long time, and most of all, the resistance to publish them, and the recent events with servers, concern me that this might be more about power and control than about anything else
One more thing - looking for Deja Vu?
check this out.... 
