OK, thanks for answering that, Cindy.
It's not always easy to work with groups. At this point, though, probably best to allow the group to bring their recommendations to the floor and then discuss. We can't all drive the bus, as it were, for lack of a reasonable analogy. It just creates a lot of confusion to have multiple efforts.
I'd like to talk an unofficial stab at your questions, if you'd permit me:
Why are the meeting minutes consistently 3-4 months out of date?
Do they have a standard published? It'd be nice if it were more timely but I am guessing the time lag is due to volunteers finding time to compile the notes, then the back and forth a review takes. Perhaps the board can set a goal to improve in this area.
Just to add - before the 2010 elections - there were ***NO*** minutes. That's why you see me supporting the openness I see. Even if the notes are late, they are provided (and should be, IMO.)
Why are the names of nominees not included in the meeting minutes?
That's been answered a few times. It should be noted you and I as candidates who were never board members feel differently about publishing those names. So, let's at least respect the fact that there is no Right Way(tm) to do this. Sounds like the board will consider this change and we'll see if they add publishing the names of candidates hopefully after confirming the candidates are comfortable with their name being shared.
Why aren't the vote results published? (ex. Jan received 3 votes, Johan received 2 votes, Juanita received 4 votes)
I suppose they could. I don't remember anyone asking. Personally, I don't think it's helpful information but respect we can see that differently.
Where is the logic in having a board consisting of third-party developers who will make decisions influenced by personal gain?
Well, here I think you head into challenging areas since every one, whether they admit it or not, has personal benefits for their involvement. I would hope the board would continue to try to balance involvement across a myriad of different influences. Site builders, extension developers, core developers, trainers and so on, all have important points of view. Same can be said of diversity in other areas.
It would be wrong, IMO, to omit extension developers, especially assuming they can't be community minded. In any group, some people are more self serving than others but I think that's part of the selection process -- trying (TRYING) to find community minded people. IMO, the group has addressed that goal sufficient (not perfectly.)
Where is the transparency?
Frankly, I think that's unfair and it's not constructive. It's like asking "Where is the love?" of someone questioning like you are. I know you do care and it's from that caring part of you that you ask but I also believe you aren't being completely fair. But, that doesn't mean I reject you. I value you.
OK. Thanks for allowing me to share my unofficial POV. ;-)