[Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
sebmol at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 12:34:34 UTC 2009
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :)
I'm not getting the reference. Can you help?
>> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within
>> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a
>> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter.
>> On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter
>> meeting had no "mandate" from their chapters to enter into any sort of
>> agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each
>> chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I
>> don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting
>> that binds the chapters that attend.
> I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many
> singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very
> big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made
> "collectively" all the time, and the decision is a product of
> "consensus" and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to
> one person.
Yes, I agree too. That's why I wrote it would be ideal to have two people.
> Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever,
> but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing
> who they consider "the right person" to make decisions that could
> engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because
> their strength lies in having very different individuals in their
> board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy
> when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left "alone"
> (think for an extreme example, the person "mandated" says yes and then
> is disavowed by the board/the members etc.).
If the chapters each send two representatives and there's disagreement
among the board, the mandate could also stipulate that they both have
to agree to give a vote on behalf of the chapter. This obviously gets
quite unwieldy with more than two representatives.
> I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a
> consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As
> soon as you try and introduce some "voting" system or other, the
> balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would
> come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration
> (which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean
> you have to look at them).
Yes, this does open a few issues. It's something we should discuss in
April. Perhaps it might be useful for the chapters represented there
to formulate some common opinon on chapters or the chapter-foundation
> But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and
> we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-)
Diversity in opinion and thought is what makes us strong :)
More information about the foundation-l