[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>  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.

Hm... If matters, I didn't mention any kind of general mandatory power
over the Board. My position is that community should take care about
itself, which was, generally a practice (the Board doesn't like to be
involved in community issues), but without clear mechanisms outside of
the project level. And VC may address that issue (if represents
community). Generally, my idea is based over need that we need
separated real-life and content/community bodies. The Board should
take care about money, while community should take care about itself.

Also, I mentioned Meta ArbCom function as a temporary one, until the
real Meta ArbCom would be constituted. Instead of complaining nowhere
about the problems out of the project level, VC would be able to take
care about that temporary. (As in this moment is obvious that it would
be created before Meta ArbCom.)