Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board advisors

Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board was
concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board Advisors
served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It is
proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board Advisors.

Board Advisors were initially created in [2] and notice is hereby given that
resolution 2019-11-22.tp.1 will be voted on in our January board meeting.

I am posting to spi-general in order to notify the SPI membership and
obtain any suggestions or other comments about the resolution.

Regards,

Tim.
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest.

[1] https://spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2019/2019-11-22.tp.1/ <https://spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2019/2019-11-22.tp.1/>
[2] https://spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004/2004-08-10.iwj.dbg.3/

* Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org> [2019-12-09 20:17]:
> Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board was
> concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board Advisors
> served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It is
> proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board Advisors.

I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
advisors).

--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 10:36:06PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org> [2019-12-09 20:17]:
> > Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board was
> > concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board Advisors
> > served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It is
> > proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board Advisors.
>
> I think there should be some rationale in the resolution as to why,
> i.e. that this is not a reduction in transparency but a reflection
> that monthly SPI board meetings are open and that everyone is
> invited to participate (rather than limiting input to some special
> advisors).

That plus:
- (1) we don't actually reach out to the advisors for input (as far as
I've seen since I was elected a few years ago)
- (2) if we want input from someone, we can just ask them without
appointing them as an advisor

--
Luca Filipozzi

Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org> writes:

> Hi everyone. One item discussed at a recent meeting of the SPI board was
> concerning the position of Board Advisors. Many years ago Board Advisors
> served a useful purpose but have not been used in a very long time. It is
> proposed in this resolution[1] to rescind the positions of SPI Board
> Advisors.

It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?

Bdale

* Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> [2019-12-09 15:59]:
> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?

Make sure reality is reflected.

The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that. It also creates
more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
an advisor?)

(For the record, I'm not on the board and can't speak for SPI. But I
brought this up when I was on the board and had the action item to
write a resolution, which unfortunately I never did.)
--
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

Hi,

Le 2019-12-09 à 18:19, Martin Michlmayr a écrit :
> * Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> [2019-12-09 15:59]:
>> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
>> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
>> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
> Make sure reality is reflected.
>
> The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
> in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that.

I find it quite natural in a mostly open project like this one that
advisors are not explicitly consulted. I would not infer from a presence
in such an SPI advisor list that a person is explicitly consulted.

> It also creates
> more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
> an advisor?)

I do not see balance between projects (whatever that means) as a goal.
Nor would I consider gender imbalance as a problem per se. To discuss
genders, the problem I could see is a lack of feminine presence. But I
expelling productive males would be a costly solution to that, if it can
be one.

I never heard about advisor creating any kind of imbalance (though I
must say I was also unaware of their existence).

That being said, I have no strong opinion on this, though if we don't
publish a list of current advisors, as seems to be the case, I would
tend to support abolition.

>
> [...]

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 10 Dec 2019, at 10:19 am, Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com> wrote:
>
> * Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> [2019-12-09 15:59]:
>> It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of
>> just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing
>> appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve?
>
> Make sure reality is reflected.
>
> The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted
> in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that. It also creates
> more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always
> an advisor?)

Just curious - is there was any more discussion on this topic? Perhaps
we can make a decision one way or the other at the board meeting next week.

Tim.