[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Gavin Chait]

Accountability is created by the tension that exists between groups that 
watch each other.  Having a set of committees reporting to a single board is 
simply a pyramid.

A director (CEO, whatever you wish to call the position) and their team is 
one locus of control.  A board is another.  The board's task is to offer 
guidance, select individuals to perform specific tasks, remove 
non-performers from office and so on.  But the actual running of the 
organisation is left to the director and team.

Reconstituting Anthere's list of committees into a set of line functions 
overseen by a director would look as follows:

* Finance and internal audit - task is to ensure bookkeeping, and audit, as 
well as assist auditors appointed by board; insurance can be pasted in here 
as well.
* Chapters - I'm assuming this has some oversight of the projects?
* Communications and Public Relations - press releases, events, promotions, 
as well as watching media for outside coverage, etc.
* Information technology and technical development - server maintenance and 
development
* Special projects - should this simply be part of an enlarged Chapters 
role?
* Legal - specialist required in international law, trademarks, etc.
* Fundraising - works closely with communications and PR
* HR and admin - if you are going to have an office, you need to ensure it 
gets cleaned, stocked with coffee / tea, salaries paid on time, contracts 
drawn up ... that sort of thing
* Director / CEO - the boss, and reports directly to the board

These are all simply technical roles - there is no assumption that they 
would be a single person, or a group, simply tasks that may need to be 
performed.  The board gets standardised feedback and has the right to 
intervene to fire the director or any of the other role-players.  The board 
does not run the operation, it simply has oversight and ultimate control. 
The director knows that they report to the board.

Board's normally do not require a massive time commitment and so they can be 
stocked with celebrities who are able to open doors (and consequently make 
the fundraising task a lot easier).

Typically, any organisation has the following core requirements:
* financial control
* marketing
* strategic planning
* operational support (includes: IT, legal, HR and so on)

You could, depending on the work-load, bundle many of these tasks together:
* finance, internal audit, admin, hr
* IT, technical development
* chapters, special projects
* communications, PR, fundraising
* legal
* director

So then you need six people in your head office.  Your board could be as 
large as you like (remembering that the bigger your board, the harder it is 
to get everyone to get together at the same time, or agree on anything). 
The overall strategy - it goes without saying - can be the responsibility of 
the board.  Implementation belongs to the director.

Anthere again:
"Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a
project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves
independently of the Foundation,  only respecting the general goal of
the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality
essentially)."

I don't suggest anything like absolute power (editorial control, that sort 
of thing) but it is useful to have a person in charge who keeps track of 
what is going on.  They act as champion for the project.  If you really want 
to create a Chinese wall between the Foundation and its projects then you 
have to have someone at any particular project that the Foundation can talk 
to.  Someone has to guarantee the core rules will be applied.

It's no good simply cutting a perfectly good project loose when it crosses 
the line.  Someone, tasked with championing the project, should have the job 
of keeping the project inside those lines ... as gently as possible.  Only 
when they completely loose the ability to control those guidelines should a 
project be cut.