[Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[Erik Moeller]

On 6/18/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at 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