It seems that the Chairman of the Board "fail[s] to see what community
input could have brought" to its decision to "delegate[] the authority to
adopt, alter, and revoke policies to the Executive Director," the purpose
of which was "making the legal team life's easier when they need to dosmall
and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the wholeresolution
process to change a comma".
Points that members of the community might have made include:
1. The resolution as adopted is without limitation and far broader than
needed to achieve its intended effect. A limiting clause could and should
have been inserted such as "Changes shall be made only for the purpose of
clarification, or in cases of immediate necessity, and reported to the
Board at the earliest opportunity: they shall cease to have effect at the
next meeting of the Board unless approved by the Board at that meeting.
*"*
*2. *The resolution does not provide transparency as to (a) what policies
are imposed by the Executive Director or her sub-delegates or (b) who those
authorised sub-delegates are. Point (a) would have been secured by a
clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain the details of
policies adopted, altered, or revoked under this authority and publish them
at [a suitable location] and no such policy shall be effective until so
published." Point (b) would have been secured by a clause stating "The
Executive Director shall maintain a list of persons authorised to adopt,
alter or revoke policies and publish that list at [a suitable location].
No statement by a person not on that list shall be, or claim to be, a
policy of the Foundation, and nothing shall be a policy of the Foundation
unless expressly stated to be so by a person on that list".
Presumably the Board considered these points explicitly in their own
private delberations -- I make that assumption since the Chair is confident
that it is impossible for the community to have contributed anything to the
deliberations that the Board in their own collective wisdom were not
already cognisant of.
The result is that the Board have handed unlimited authority to the
executive to make policy, and the community have no way of knowing what
that policy now is, or who is accountable for making it. We presume that
was the Board's intention. Why do they believe this is a good idea in
general, or compatible with their commitment to transparency in particular?
Rogol Domedonfors