This may be less of a concern than it seems. Certainly there was the problem (as there has been across other councils/boards, too) of some members either not participating very much or not participating at all. I think one could set policies in place to deal with this (something that was discussed during the last council’s tenure from what I remember), essentially having processes in place to replace what are effectively vacant seats.
However, I don’t think that the issue was that it wasn’t rewarding. I mean, I enjoyed my time on the council. It was hard work at times, but it was really interesting. I would certainly do it again if the opportunity presented itself. But I have to say I had no preconceived notion of what the work was going to be and I had an open mind to whatever it was.
If you look above, you’ll see some discussion about what the council was and wasn’t. There’s a lot of struggle going on trying to define it. That is where the problem may actually lie: candidates do not know what the council does exactly. So maybe that’s where the problem lies. Maybe it needs better definition. Maybe nominees need some sort of interview/vetting process ahead of time? It’s possible folks might have expected something more technical or something that involved steering the whole direction of the Ubuntu project.
Of course, the explanation for the lack of participation could even be more simple than that: real life getting in the way.
It’s hard to say for certain. But, I think in relation to having nothing, having something that didn’t work as well as we would like is much preferable. I would think that at least implementing a transitional council to get us through to when we do have all the right people in place would be a wise idea. I mean, we have a technical example of this right in Ubuntu itself (and kudos to the developers for it!).
I offered to run the election before and I’d offer to do it again, even if just for the aforementioned transitional council.