X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election

[Matt Turner]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:49 AM, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> I'm running for a position on the BOD.
> Please vote for me.

Who are you?

Everyone else running for the board is actively involved in X in some
capacity, mostly in active development. I don't see any code
contributions from you in the X server repository. Your statement of
contribution seems to acknowledge this.

I also don't see any mail from you in the archives about anything
other than running for the board.

So why do you want to run for the board?

You say that you "will participate in the bi-weekly meetings on IRC
and attend the annual face-to-face." These are things the other people
running for the board do because they want to--they're interested and
involved in X. Basically everyone is on IRC all the time already, and
I doubt any one of the people running for the board _haven't_ been to
an XDC/XDS/FOSDEM, probably before they decided to run or were
previously elected to the board.

So, who are you, why do you want to run for the board, what have been
your contributions to X and why should I take you seriously?

Matt Turner

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: X.Org Foundation Board of Directors 2010 Election
> To: Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be>
> Cc: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>, members at x.org,
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:43:04PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:42:33AM -0600, David Nicol wrote:
>>> > A vote for David Nicol is a vote for transparency!
>>>
>>> Full transparency into exactly what all the board members know still
>>> wouldn't tell you much more than what you already know.
>>
>> It will at least give us an idea as to why we are voting at all.
>>
>> Currently we have absolutely nothing to go by.
>
> I have experience with participating in effective meetings with a
> time-zone constrained committees going back to the early nineties,
> when I was a founding member of an on-line game exploring the dynamics
> of bylaws. Which still exists. The written medium is perfectly fine
> for holding meetings -- it worked for the founding fathers of the USA
> two hundred and change years ago, with transparency still available in
> the form of things like The Federalist Papers (which I haven't read,
> but I would like to find the time, I think.)
>
> So as a campaign promise, I, as a board member, will attempt to shift
> the meetings into a less synchronous mode. Given a wiki on which all
> parties may describe their positions, real progress can be made with
> far less procedural infighting than you get with a synchronous meeting
> with the awful bottleneck of Who Has The Floor.
>
> That game had participants in Australia, the USA, and Europe, both
> eastern and western. My big takeaway was, you don't want to get in a
> position opposed to Norwegians in December in a play-by-e-mail game,
> as you will lose.
>
>
>
> --
> Is it the time when there isn't time to discuss but there is time to act yet?
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
>