On 6/18/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I think that it would be interesting that all current candidates actually *give* their opinion publicly on what they consider is membership, on how membership should be taken into account and which type of organisation they envision would be best for the Foundation.
This is the kind of thing that I would want to put into an election platform after much serious thought and, if elected to the Board, would want to debate in further detail with everyone concerned, rather than making some kind of firm statement about it on a Sunday afternoon.
Michael Snow raised the important question whether we want any membership to be tied to our legal structure. I tend to agree with him that this is not strictly necessary if an informal commitment to open and broad member participation -- legal or otherwise -- is firmly rooted in our organization's principles. I believe that, given some recent episodes, the desire of some users to remain anonymous is understandable, and needs to be taken very seriously. I would like to hear some more of Tim Starling's thoughts on the matter; I believe he is an advocate of legal membership.
I also think Kelly's suggestion to tie membership to the chapter structure deserves some serious thought, though of course we don't have chapters in most regions. It would drive the creation of new chapters, but I would also want some other method for people who do not have a chapter to represent them to nevertheless participate in membership-oriented decisions. This is a complex proposal with many implications, given our desire to keep chapters to some extent separate from the Foundation. (I'm also not sure all chapters currently have members.) Here I would very much appreciate Delphine's input, and that of the chapter committee and the chapters themselves.
I am inclined to believe that the entire Board should be chosen by the community (legally as members or otherwise), and that there should be an additional Advisory Council with non-voting experts and, as you like to call them, "Big Shots" ;-). So far I haven't seen many strong arguments to give outsiders or non-elected community members the full _legal_ authority of the Board. While I might be convinced on that point, I would probably want at least the majority of the Board to be elected.
As we are striving to reduce the role of the Board in day-to-day governance, I think the more critical questions are about the interaction of the committees, the role of the Executive Director and (possibly) an Executive Committee, the ease of participation in these groups, their scope, their internationality, and so on. Board membership should be about strategy, while the implementation of that strategy should be left up to a well-balanced combination of a large and dynamic group of volunteers and some hired staff.
I do explicitly not support the notion of a small membership base of handpicked individuals, and think that membership dues must be set up in such a way that they do not discriminate against those who cannot afford them. I am not a big fan of the Wikicouncil idea or similar proposals of elected representative bodies. Any Board election should be open to all active community members who are interested in Foundation affairs, and votes on new projects or other Foundation matters should be similarly direct and open. Simply put, when you have an open vote, I see no reason not to allow anyone who meets some basic criteria to vote. And when it's about getting involved in Foundation matters, the criteria for involvement should not be imposed universally through some community filter, but according to the needs of each project and workgroup.
As regards your statement that a temporary Board appointment may be imminent, is there a particular reason why it needs to be an appointment, rather than an election? For what period of time would such an appointment be?
Erik