[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

[Nathan]

Lodewijk,

I think it is unwise to create the VC with no clear idea of what it
is for or will do. The proposed members of the provisional group are
similar to the folks who have been discussing this already - I am not
sure that formalizing the discussion will allow you to achieve a
consensus on the core issues that you have not previously been able
to achieve.

I would rather not have a fait accompli situation as Jussi-Ville has
proposed - forgiveness rather than permission. Why should the Board
agree to create an amorphous group and include among its members
those with wildly divergent views of its purpose? Milos wants a group
with mandatory power over the Board that can function as a meta-ArbCom,
and others have proposed a merely advisory and intermediary role on issues
the Board currently does not address. I want this determined in advance by
those who believe the VC needs to exist - determining whether that is true
or not requires and understanding of what the VC is supposed to be.

It would be far preferable, in my opinion, to give the community and the
Board the opportunity to evaluate a fully conceived idea with the agreement
of
a core group of participants *before* the idea is implemented. I don't think
this is too much to ask, and I see no reason to push beyond to the creation
of the VC at this time. Legal and governance issues in particular should
lead to a much more careful and considered approach to this issue.

Nathan