[Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>  > I have spent about a decade working in election campaigns,
>  > and, to repeat the "meme": You cannot give orders to volun-
>  > teers.

I see no sense that that is true.

>  > (Besides, I see no rationale in disallowing an editor
>  > to edit article A before he has edited article B - probably
>  > you end up with no article edited at all. What would be the
>  > benefit?)
>  >
Depends what "Article A" and "Article B" are, but for the most part I
agree with this.

>  >   The US presidential election is a prime example: Polls
>  > show that supporters of the Democratic Party will not only
>  > cease their commitment if their favorite candidate is not
>  > nominated, they will even vote for *another* party's candi-
>  > date.
>  >
Are you saying that all voters are "volunteers"?  I guess this is true
in a sense, as one is not required by law to vote (in the US).  But
when I referred to Obama volunteers I was thinking more of the people
who work directly on the campaign.

>  >   That is exactly the point I made in the post you replied
>  > to: Should the board decide against the consensus of the
>  > volunteers (editors, developers, system administrators,
>  > whatever), they will walk.
>  >
>  > Tim
>
Depends on the gravity of the decision (I'm sure no one agrees with
the board 100%), but to some extent, yes, this is true.

>  A big difference between board and editors is that if an article has not
>  been written yet, an editor can not be blamed for not having written it.
>  Also, if an editor makes a mistake, the next editor can not be blamed
>  for the mistake done by the previous editor.
>
>  It is not the case for the board. If a board member makes a mistake,
>  then the whole board is seen as responsible. If a board member does not
>  do his job, then the whole board is guilty of not providing this
>  specific job.

This is only true if the individual board members choose not to
publicly point out the mistake or neglect and speak against it.

>  The outcome is quite embarassing. As Chair, I feel that a particular
>  problematic situation. Whilst I "can not give orders to volunteer board
>  members", I have to make sure that certain things are done and properly
>  done (if not done, the community complains, the IRS complains, the audit
>  company complains, the readers of the website complain etc...). But
>  whilst I can not give orders to others, I can not fire them either.
>
>  I am left with either the choice of "letting the thing not done" (with
>  the risk of failing to my own duties as board member, or with the risk
>  of community blaming me as Chair, or with the risk of the community not
>  electing me :-)); or I am left with the choice of trying to do the job
>  myself, covering up for the others failures (at the risk of becoming
>  enslaved to the Foundation, ruining my own personal and professional life).
>
I certainly hope you do not choose the latter.  You don't owe anything
to us, Florence.  If the Foundation is ruining your personal and/or
professional life, please resign.  I hope that's not the case, but I
get the sense that you're saying it is.

As for the former, I think your first step, should you choose this
route, should be to come to the community and explain what's not being
done, or what's being done improperly.  Then, if you feel you're
qualified to do so, write up a resolution to fix the problem.  It's
not your fault if the rest of the board doesn't pass the resolution.