Nathan wrote:
> From the comments by Erik and Florence, it seems like the overall role
> of the ED is still up in the air from the point of view of the staff
> and Board. The role of the ED (particularly when you are talking, as
> Erik is, about defining areas of expertise and ownership of strategic
> vision) is something that should be established *before* you hire an
> ED and a deputy, because before you decide how do you know what you
> want?
Not really.
First, the deputy role is defined by the ED. So, not under control of
the board. That's up to Sue. I am not aware of any disagreement over the
deputy job description itself.
As for the description of the role of the ED, I do not think there is a
lot of major disagreement really.
There is disagreement perhaps on the extent of the freedom we should
allocate.
But ultimately, as the bylaws make it very clear, "All corporate powers
shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and
affairs of the Foundation shall be managed under, the direction of the
Board of Trustees."
Erik is possibly defending a position where the ED would apparently be
given full authority, which is not compatible with the bylaws.
Now, Erik might disagree with this, but given that he is neither ED, nor
board member... I really appreciate his feedback and his thoughts, as
always. As I do appreciate any of you feedback and thoughts. And am
really happy of this healthy discussion.
> I'm glad that Erik is invested enough in these changes to write pages
> of comprehensive proposals, but I think it makes it difficult for a
> thorough review. I'd suggest you isolate different areas and review
> them separately first - i.e. a Wikicouncil and the role of the board,
> the role of the staff vs. the Board in an open debate, the purview of
> the ED etc. as individual items for consideration.
>
> I'd also like to point out that the byplay is something I at least
> miss, and it detracts (in my view) from a meaningful debate. I'm
> speaking to the inside-speak between Danny, Florence and Erik in this
> case - particularly where Florence alludes that constraints have been
> imposed on her ability to express her opinion openly, which is hard to
> imagine or justify as she is Chair of the Board.
>
> Nathan
Does not make it less real :-(