On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
I am definitely interested. It would be revitalizing for those who don't know where they stand vis-a-vis the foundation and are feeling anxious about it... but want to be involved.
Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad. At the least, one should be required to submit an application providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership
I agree. Now, who is interested in making the application ? And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the paper forms ? These are practical issues.
Not quite answering your question, but...
The application need not be complicated; - user name on a wikimedia project if applicable - optional contribution* - real name and address; - privacy : whether this membership can be made public, whether the real name can be made public - spam : whether future emails or updates are desired (note that one yearly notice will be sent to all members; checkbox for preferring snail mail or email)
* or, as per the older proposal, how much is being contributed (regular / discounted dues) with a check of the length and degree of contribution for the latter
As for who would fill the database, presumably these would be sent to the foundation office...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community. I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another vision or another perspective that current members of the community do not have.
It is entirely possible to have a board of trustees, with executive duties, and a separate board of advisors; which could provide for image, strategy, standing, goodwill, fundraising help, and extra perspective. This has been suggested before; I recall some very old pages on Meta listing who in the world might make good advisors.
My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
Both the overlapping terms and the division of appointment/election sound fine. It seems that at any rate the bylaws have to be modified...
If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to do this?
SJ