Election resolution - substantive issues

[Ian Jackson]

David Graham writes ("Resolution 2003-10-14.iwj.1c"):
> I have made more changes, and submit this as 2003-10-14.iwj.1b, and would
> like to withdraw 2003-10-14.iwj.1b:

There are two main things that David and I seem to disagree on, apart
from some technical issues.


Number of board members to be elected now:

I disagree with Graham's suggestion that we should elect two.

Firstly, a board of 9 is too small because if we have two resignations
in the next 3 months (not that unlikely) we'll have to have another
emergency election etc.

Secondly, I think that each elections should be the same size.
Varying the number of posts available at each election is a dangerous
thing to do, because it influences how easy it is for particular
people to be reelected.

Thirdly, I don't think this emergency situation is the right time to
be (re)addressing the question of the board size.


Interim reinstatement:

Graham writes:
> [The interim reinstatement issue] is addressed by the election
> itself. I do not believe we need to appoint temporary board
> members. If we do, I would strongly suggest that a single Advisor be
> temporarily promoted to the board until the elections are over.

It seems to me that the board would be failing to do its best to abide
by the constitution if it continued to function with less than the
mandated number of board members for any longer than strictly necessar.

In the interests of continuity it would seem most sensible to have
back on the board those two longest-serving members who've fallen off.


Ian.