Volunteer position.
No time?
Vacate the seat.
No new takers?
Then pay people to take the seat!
It is possible for a charity to keep administration costs so low, that their beaurocracy becomes inefficient.
And we should also be aware of the fact that new entries to charity boards can bring fresh eyes to the goings on of the board, so it can have a quality control or audit effect.
Which is why they don't do it.
The board members of Opensats will not give up their positions. They have formed a tacit understanding. They don't care whether Nostr can develop quickly. They only care about the resume endorsement that Opensats gives them. In the past few years, have you seen that board member mention improving the operational efficiency of Opensats and other issues? They only say that Bitcoin will win! Nostr will win! In fact, they only care about themselves winning. This job is just their part-time charity work. But the people who love Nostr and the developers of Nostr regard Nostr as their everything. nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f
They complain that it's so much hard, terrible, thankless work, but I haven't seen a run for the exists or any efficiency improvement in the selection process, so it can't be that bad.
And, now, they've mostly switched to hiring pseudo-employees in full-time on long-term contracts (including themselves), so they're actually just another software company masquerading as a grant charity, with no internal quality controls. But whatever.
I'd argue they don't do it because of fiat incentives, although it's very indirect. When people have more opportunities, they will be less defensive.
