[Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution

[Nathan]

Sorry, should be "Chapters Committee" second paragraph first sentence.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Some of the proposals in this 100-post thread seem hopelessly complicated.
> If you want something like this to succeed, make it simple. I don't think
> its realistic to view this proposed council as a Board parallel in
> authority, even if the types of authority are separated clearly. Members of
> the Board have specific legal responsibility for Foundation activities that
> require it to be the final level of authority. Some elements of authority
> can be restricted from the Board through by-laws, but I don't think its
> possible to designate a level of authority above the Board beyond the
> "membership" itself without conferring legal duties and liabilities.
>
> What about all this effort can't be accomplished through an expansion of
> the duties and participation in the Chapters Community? It seems like the
> only non-ChapCom related responsibilities are governance related, and
> governance is the specific province of the Board - if you want to committees
> to make recommendations, well we've got those and we also already have a
> structure for them. Why reinvent the wheel, particularly when it appears
> that it will have a thousand moving parts? Milos has so far in this thread
> called for the Volunteer Council,  a Supreme Court and judicial system,
> another body with content authority... Has no one on this list ever read the
> WP:CREEP page on en.wikipedia? Folks self-select themselves for committees
> based on interest and level of committment - how do you expect to increase
> representation and participation simply by creating a new bureaucratic
> edifice?
>
> There is great value in having non-Board groups confer and make specific
> recommendations, and value in encouraging participation and understanding
> between projects and languages, but I think the idea of a Council as has
> been articulated by some in this thread is fatally flawed - and perhaps this
> is why it hasn't moved forward in so long. If conceptual flaws and
> complexity have prevented agreement on the role and functions of this group
> before, why should we expect that such agreement will appear through the
> "provisional council" process?
>
> Nathan
>