Jon Harald Søby wrote:
I believe your analysis on the implications of an
imminent board
expansion is quite correct. It is not long ago since the board was
expanded last time (compared with how long it had the same size
earlier), and to ensure the stability of the board it will be better
to wait with an expansion until Frieda and the new appointee are fully
integrated.
Whether the expansion should be done by appointment or elections I
have no strong feeling about. I think I would prefer an election
expansion, but them we are running the risk of not getting enough
expertise on board. Perhaps we could choose the middle path, and add
one member by election and one by appointment.
I think that the Board is well on its way to having its required
stability, and its really beginning to look more like a Board. This is
far different from the early days when its three members gave the
appearance of being a one man show since only one of them was really
well known. Now that several directors regularly communicate with the
community it is doing a much better job of keeping things together.
We are seeing an effort toward a balanced approach, and it's easy to see
how a premature expansion would affect that balance. The plan to have 6
elected members with overlapping terms seems to be working, and a
further appointed 3 gives the opportunity to bring on people with needed
skills when those don't make it through the electoral process. If there
is an expansion before next summer's election the additional people
should understand that they will need to face election at that later time.
Having someone with financial skill and understanding is important, but
it should not be necessary for that person to be the one preparing
regular financial statements. The relationship between the treasurer
and the Chief Financial Officer should have a parallel to the
relationship between the president and the Chief Executive Officer. The
same conflict problems can arise when the treasurer muddles his duties
as a Board member, and those which he has as a staff member. By the
same token the treasurer need not be the one who does the fundraising.
Ec
2007/9/12, Florence Devouard
<Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>om>:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>> Silly me, I forgot to replace the subject properly.
>>
>> On 9/11/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know whether the Board wants community input on this or not,
>>> but I suspect there will be community members who would like to give
>>> their input anyway.
>>>
>>> From the "Board meeting planned in october" thread:
>>>
>>> On 9/10/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> During the board meeting, there should be discussions over whether to
>>>> expand the board to 9, or keep it for now at 7. A couple of names are
>>>> currently floating around.
>>>> There may be a change in the terms of the appointed members.
>>>>
>>> Based on the board expansion resolution of December last year [1], I
>>> would have expected that the Board would be expanded to 9 in July next
>>> year, with three more elected seats to be up for election at that
>>> time.
>>> --
>>> [1]
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_expansion
>>>
> Nod. However, Erik expressed the desire to expand the board earlier
> (december I presume or later ?). If so, it would be by appointment probably.
>
> I am not so supportive of the idea of expanding the board right now.
> We are just getting out of a pretty difficult year, and finally seeing
> the end of a black tunnel. With the executive now in place, new staff
> members planned in the near future, we have many new opportunities ahead
> of us.
>
> After much storming, the board is finally enjoying a little bit of
> peace, at least a decrease in the feeling of urgency. An opportunity to
> finally step back and reflect on the general strategy and do its
> oversight job.
>
> I do think that the organization can only benefit from a bit of
> stability. Frieda has not yet been fully integrated and oriented. I
> would see the arrival of two new members as a significant disturbance,
> even if both would be very motivated to get involved in new projects.
>
> Also, there is this requirement to replace Michael. This is a big deal.
> We took a lot of care to hire Sue, I believe we should put just as much
> care in getting a new treasurer. SO there will be one more newcomer,
> with all the implications in terms of orientation and new balance
> between members.
>
> I am also hesitant of what is currently the interest of having more
> board members join. If it is to get the benefits of more hard workers, I
> think it is not the right way to do this. Board members should not be
> here to do the job of missing staff.
>
> The only benefits I would see in expanding the board would be
> * to add more stability if the board was unstable (and frankly, I do not
> think it is the case)
> * to add more skills, such as finances or fundraising. If so, the right
> way to do it is to first define skills to complete and then find the
> candidates.
>
> Skills in finances will be the area of the future treasurer.
> Fundraising would be nice, but I am not aware that we have such a
> profile around us.
>