Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Board Composition
jabley at hopcount.ca
Tue May 3 16:09:49 UTC 2016
On 3 May 2016, at 11:36, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Again, this is not personal. If it were, I’d be endorsing Mike rather than calling his candidacy into question. However, from a structural perspective, I think it is important that the community at least consider the issue.
I think it's reasonable for there to be a clear process for disclosing conflicts of interest and for people to recuse themselves from conversations if a conflict is identified. I think that's necessary and desirable regardless of where anybody works, for any organisation.
Having a large proportion of the board conflicted simultaneously on a single issue (because of who they work for or because of any other reason) might be a problem if it meant that the board was unable to make a decision on a topic e.g. for reasons of being unable to achieve quorum. It doesn't seem obvious that that's a concern, here.
If there's reason to think that processes concerned with conflict identification and disclosure are inadequate, then that seems like a fine thing to discuss. I don't hear anybody saying that they think that's the case, though.
If you really thought an individual was not capable of managing a potential conflict (of any kind) you wouldn't vote for them. I certainly have no such concern about Mike, and you are saying you don't either. He seems better qualified to understand this stuff than anybody else I have ever worked with, in fact.
I don't actually see anything to talk about, here.
More information about the RPD