[Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal sent to the Board

[Nathan]

The name is irrelevant, that is right - the role is important, and
particularly
whether it conflicts or duplicates the role of the Board. I'm not sure I
understand what problem this is intended to solve - a group of people on
a closed list/in private deliberations, making decisions on behalf of the
community they were selected to represent. That, to me, sounds like the
Board of Trustees we currently have. Unless there is some serious problem
with the composition of the current board, why reinvent it with a new name
and similar functions? Its a huge headache and will draw roughly the same
complaints we have now. Do you want the Board to take on a new role?
Have it expanded, with a committee to address the issues you think need
addressing? Creating a redundant body, that in some ways duplicates the
Board and sets up a tension between them... Seems like a way to lose any
future steps in decades of bureaucratic infighting.

Nathan

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does the name really matter?
>
> You can call the staff Grand Pubahs and the board
> the Great Potentates if you like, but it doesn't change
> their role.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Or the Working Group on Community Relations?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message ----
> >  From: Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>
> >  To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >  Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 7:02:58 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal
> sent to the Board
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >  > What if this Volunteer Council has no real offficial standing and
> solely regulates the Community? No tax problems, right?
> >
> >  This is more along the lines of what I've been thinking about. If the
> >  VC is a community-based structure, and does not change the governance
> >  structure of the foundation, it's a moot point entirely. Th VC
> >  shouldn't change the structure of the foundation any more then the
> >  chapcom or the languages subcommittee or any other advisory committee
> >  do. If terminology is a problem, perhaps we should rename it to
> >
> > something more benign, like "volunteer committee", or "community
> >  advisory board" or something.
> >
> >  --Andrew Whitworth
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >  foundation-l mailing list
> >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> >  You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
> Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
> >  http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
> >  _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > foundation-l mailing list
> >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>