[Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[Samuel Klein]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
> board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.

I am definitely interested.  It would be revitalizing for those who don't 
know where they stand vis-a-vis the foundation and are feeling anxious 
about it... but want to be involved.


>> Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
>> At the least, one should be required to submit an application
>> providing ones identity.  But to say that the fact that the membership
>
> I agree.
> Now, who is interested in making the application ?
> And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the
> paper forms ?
> These are practical issues.

Not quite answering your question, but...

The application need not be complicated;
  - user name on a wikimedia project if applicable
  - optional contribution*
  - real name and address;
  - privacy : whether this membership can be made public, whether the real 
name can be made public
  - spam : whether future emails or updates are desired (note that one 
yearly notice will be sent to all members; checkbox for preferring snail 
mail or email)

* or, as per the older proposal, how much is being contributed (regular / 
discounted dues) with a check of the length and degree of contribution for 
the latter

As for who would fill the database, presumably these would be sent to the 
foundation office...


>> I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It makes absolutely no
>> sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
>> I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
>> that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
>
> It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve
> our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great
> strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another
> organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could
> help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another
> vision or another perspective that current members of the community do
> not have.

It is entirely possible to have a board of trustees, with executive 
duties, and a separate board of advisors; which could provide for image, 
strategy, standing, goodwill, fundraising help, and extra perspective.
This has been suggested before; I recall some very old pages on Meta 
listing who in the world might make good advisors.


> My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
> clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).

Both the overlapping terms and the division of appointment/election sound 
fine.  It seems that at any rate the bylaws have to be modified...

>> If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will

The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that 
it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not 
demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
do this?

SJ