[Foundation-l] Elections: a new board for the future
Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 17 14:05:16 UTC 2007
effe iets anders wrote:
> But I assume that Jan-Bart, Jimbo and maybe Michael too might be
> reappointed? At least I would hope they will :) End of term doesn't
> mean that they really have to quit :)
> So that would mean that Florence's position would be open next year,
> and two new positions would be created? (so the total goes up to nine)
There are no limits to the number of terms. So, all three could be
Below, just thoughts and personal opinion.
Jimbo had indicated he would be willing to go for an elected seat next
year. If so, he would liberate an appointed seat in june.
Michael seems to be willing to let someone take his seat, provided that
we find a good replacement for the treasurer position. Given our status,
we would need someone with accounting experience, in the USA. Best would
be someone with non-profit experience; Perhaps a senior partner in an
accounting company ?
Jan-Bart seems undecided right now. I guess the workload was in the end
heavier than he expected, but hopefully, with our quest for ED and Legal
Coordinator coming to its conclusion, we can hope individual board
members workload will improve. I actually share the same type of concern
Not decided is whether we should quickly go for a 9, and increase at 11
at next elections. If so, we would appoint 2 more people during the year
(to stay on an odd number), and have my seat replaced in next june, plus
2 new elected.
Second solution is to have a full more year at 7. Get to 9 next june,
and only then decide whether to get to 11 (with two appointed). I hope I
am clear here :-)
There are some positive and negative sides in the two options.
In the first option, one negative side is that we will be 3 elected and
6 appointed. If we do this, we should aim at picking up at least 1 if
not 2 directly from the community (at bit like we did for Oscar and
Kat). A big question is also about the efficiency of us working as a
group. If we go for 9 during the year, it will make mandatory to jump at
11 in next june. Whilst we work just fine at 7 and would probably be
okay at 9, 11 is a bit of a mystery.
If we try to go to 11, it would be essentially to increase the skillset,
but ALSO to increase the cultural diversity (get some asians on board
for example). Now, let's say we end up with 4 board meetings and 1 board
retreat per year. We need to get 11 people at the same time, somewhere
on Earth. It is already tough at 7...
Also, we worked quite a bit on irc in the past year. This was feasible
because we were all on the east coast of USA, and Europe. So, around
21-22 pm european time was okay for all of us more or less. As soon as
the board gets a japanese or an indian on top of others, we'll have much
more pain to set up irc meetings.
Over time, i think it is fine. In 1 year time, with a good and complete
staff, with more experience behind us, I guess we'll work more on
"topics" with working groups. It is not yet the case, we are not very
So, in short, the only "certainty" is a new election next summer. But
appointments are still pretty much undecided. I think it is fine. There
is nothing urgent on this matter and we can wait next board to be
completed to revisit the issue.
The next meeting time for board will be in Taipei (august 2007). We'll
have a retreat with all advisory board members present, to work on a 3
year plan, and share best practices.
The next meeting will certainly be in Florida, to have the opportunity
to meet most of the staff at the same time. Perhaps end of september -
end of october. This will be the time when we have to elect positions on
the board (chair, secretary, treasurer). I guess we can revisit the
issue of board skills and expansion at that time, as well as start
planning reappointements for december.
More information about the foundation-l