Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I've already stated, several times in the past, that the roles of trustee and the roles of corporate officers should be divorced from one another. This is needed in order to provide proper checks and balances (the board oversees the officiers and the foundation membership oversees the board).
Ant : I agree
I view this as fairly loose. Let's have a page on meta. People interested list themselves there. The community then approve or does not approve to give this "official" title. Finally, the board approve or not.
I strongly feel that it should be the other way around; the board appoints officers and the foundation membership either approves or disapproves the appointees. This provides a check against merely popular people being appointed to positions they are not qualified to perform. The board members themselves are the ones that are directly elected. Thus they are the ones legally responsible for their appointees.
Ant :
I admit that the legal responsibility and qualification is a major issue.
However, I must say I would be troubled that the management would be done in such a top down approach, as I feel it could raise issues of fairness and transparency. In particular if those �coordinators� are a mandatory path for subsequent activities.
Situation 1
a candidate makes himself known to the board the board checks the candidate credentials (or whatever is thought necessary to guarantee the candidate suitability) the board then appoint the candidate (or rejects it) the nomination is announced to the community
Potential issues * Fairness issue : another candidate might have been suitable * Transparency issue : the community does not know on which credentials the candidate was chosen * Possible other issue : the community might generally not approve the candidate. In such case, do we consider the board has last word or do we consider the community could reject an appointment ?
Situation 2 : What I understand you propose is
a candidate makes himself known to the board the board check the candidate credentials (or whatever is thought necessary to guarantee the candidate suitability) the board then appoint the candidate (or rejects it) the nomination is announced the membership votes to approve or disapprove the appointed.
Potential issues * Fairness issue : another candidate might have been suitable * Transparency issue : the community does not know on which credentials the candidate was chosen * Lack of efficiency : in case the community rejects the candidate
Situation 3
a candidate makes himself known to the board the board then make a call for more candidacy for the position the board check the candidates credentials the board then appoint one (or several) of the candidates, reject others the nominations are announced the membership votes to approve or disapprove the appointed.
Potential issues * Lack of efficiency : in case the community rejects the candidate
Situation 4
a candidate makes himself known to the board the board then make a call for more candidacy for the position the board check the candidates credentials the board propose some of the candidates, reject others the approved candidates are announced the membership votes to approve or disapprove and nominate people
Potential issues * The board is more an organ of screening than decision, it mostly ensures that no bad decision may be offered to the community. Some may regret this.
Situation 5
a candidate makes himself known to the community the membership then make a call for more candidacy for the position the membership approve or disapprove candidates the board check the approved candidates credentials the board appoints one (or several) of the candidates the approved candidates are announced
Potential issues * The membership may exclude some people, and base itself more on popularity than on ability as Mav pointed out.
Are they other options ? Are they other potential issues ?
Perhaps the question is what is the role of the board ?
*To take decision for the community (and consider that the decision is good since people were elected for this, hence relieving some pressure of some decision making from the community)
*Or to guarantee that good decisions are taken by the community (and have a sort of veto when the decision appears to be bad).
Typically, the first case is the model of the current arbitration committee, and the second case is a lot of what Jimbo is doing in many cases.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs