[Foundation-l] Next board meeting

Ray Saintonge saintonge at telus.net
Mon Feb 25 01:37:21 UTC 2008

effe iets anders wrote:
> Hi Florence,
> First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole
> for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while
> that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand,
> including to-be-discussed topics.
I agree; we need to give credit when something is done right.
> I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps
> popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website
> still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer
> sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at
> least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still
> searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
That's important too.  Now that we have a person with the required 
skills to hold the staff accounting position there is a need to relax 
the requirements for the treasurer's position.  The treasurer does not 
need to do the books, he needs only to understand them, and ask 
questions about the details.  The treasurer is also a Board member, and 
participates on an equal footing with the other Board members on every 
issue that comes up at its meetings.  If an existing Board member is 
willing and able, fine, make that person the treasurer.  If not, this is 
an excellent situation for appointing a new member with adequate 
understanding.  There would be some detailed questions that would need 
to be addressed about how long his term would be, and when he would need 
to face election, but not because any of these details would be so 
contentious.  My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an 
appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than 
six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment.  The six 
months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and 
show that he can communicate with the general membership.
> Another thing I personally like that the board discusses is the board
> <-> staff transitions. I.e. can a board member become staff and visa
> versa, or should there be a transition period.
Yes, there have been some concerns around that.  An incidental issue 
arising from Erik's resignation during the first year of his mandate, is 
how to preserve the principle of staggered terms.  Does his elected 
replacement serve a one- or two-year term?  Elections will require a 
blend of such terms to maintain the stagger principle.
> Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the
> possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been
> discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about
> it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an
> initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc.
> To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put
> on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be
> able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although
> I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
The last comment on the Meta talk-page was on January 28.  I feel very 
strongly that this is an important initiative that should not be 
relegated to the wastebasket of great ideas. Personally I'm ready to be 
very flexible about the concept, and believe that the initial group will 
need time to find its legs.  Nothing in the early stages will be set in 
stone.  For now we just need for someone in an appropriate position to 
do something.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list