Actually, I would like to know if they're going to "go cold" by waiting on the order of 30-40 days for the community election to conclude first (per Drummond's hypothetical timeline).<br><br>That also gives us some time to discuss a full slate of 5 and reach out to all with a coherent unified plan. <br>
<br>-DeWitt<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Martin Atkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mart@degeneration.co.uk">mart@degeneration.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">DeWitt Clinton wrote:<br>
><br>
> The second reservation is that I feel we should have a plan in place for<br>
> the full five new corporate board members (and backup choices), rather<br>
> than cherry picking one a time. The goal would be to create a diverse<br>
> balance between vendors, consumers, international, domestic, etc, which<br>
> is hard to do with a coherent strategy in place.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I'm conscious of the fact that there are some companies ready and<br>
waiting to give us the money and join the board *now*, and those leads<br>
might go cold if we delay much longer.<br>
<br>
So while I agree that we don't want to arbitrarily add random companies,<br>
I think there is a compromise where we recruit those companies that are<br>
already interested while they're still interested and then fill in the<br>
remaining seats all at the same time as you say.<br>
<br>
That is of course unless anyone feels that the current potentials should<br>
be *rejected*. I don't think there's anything particularly objectionable<br>
about them. Do you?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>