[Foundation-l] A PC instead of a VC

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Except it's dangerous to assume that such authority cannot be implied
>  in law, even when not expressly granted. From everything I've been
>  reading here we're not at all talking about a group of volunteers who
>  are interested in helping the projects, but rather a group of
>  representatives who are interested in being the voice of the projects
>  to the board, and under some interpretations, having control over the
>  board. That's something that might imply responsibility.

Why aren't people freaking out about the existing committees then? The
chapcom plays a role, at least an ad hoc one, of helping to represent
prospective chapters to the board, and serve as a communication medium
between chapters and the board. Does that mean that the chapcom is
some kind of legal entity, or some kind of legal liability? If the
chapcom makes suggestions to the board that the board follows, does
that imply that the chapcom has control over the board?

The languages subcommittee acts as a representative for people
planning to create new language projects, and makes suggestions to the
board. Does that mean that the languages subcommittee is in control of
the board? Is this a legal liability? What about the communications
committee too?

If what you say about the PVC being a potential legal problem is true,
then it seems like we are already having that problem. If we follow
the assumption that the PVC is just an advisory position like any of
the other committees, then it avoids all the legal problems that the
committees avoid.

--Andrew Whitworth