In fact, the qualifications list includes (empasis mine):
We are looking to recruit the very best and the brightest members in the Joomla! community. Some of the criteria that will be used when evaluating nominations include:
- Community: the nominee should have a strong track-record of successfully collaborating with, enabling others and earning the respect of the Joomla! community.
- Character: the nominee should have proven themselves a person of high character, with a history of acting honestly, fairly and openly when in leadership roles.
- Experience and Expertise: if the nominee is being proposed for a specific role, they should have strong experience and expertise in that area.
- Success: the nominee should be able to point to a history of success and leaving previous roles in a better state than when they arrived.
- Diversity: to work towards gender balance and geographical diversity, we are committed to seeking nominations from talented members of the Joomla! community who are female and / or are fluent speakers of languages other than English.
Those are all admirable qualities but I just don't get it! These are the same board members who can't be bothered to:
- Post minutes for public review in a timely fashion as required by their own bylaws, or
- Post financial reports for public review (last one posted was in October of last year) as required by their own bylaws, or
- Declare an Annual Meeting and post an Annual Financial Report approved by both the Treasurer and President and as required by both OSM bylaws and New York State law, or
- Actually make motions and vote when they, as a board, are approving something.
So I am puzzled. Only the CoC can add new members to OSM. So, why is OSM soliciting new members? You figure it out.
It presents quite a conundrum. Is the board trying to recruit people who would behave better then the current board members when dealing with those who present questions and ask board members to perform as promised? Or is the board simply using these nice highfalauting phrases to cover continued efforts at reducing disclosure? You would like to think not. But looking at past behavior failures --- Don't know.
I encourage all of you to read the two petitions linked here and sign them. It is time OSM heard from its constituents!