[Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/8/27 Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de>:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
>>> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
>>> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in
>>> discussion. As an advisory board member you are not obliged to do that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why isn't it?  What's the difference?  Is it just an ego thing?  People are
>> willing to commit to something if they can put "board member" on their
>> resume, but not if they can put "advisory board member" on it?
>>
>
> No, it is not an ego thing. It is just that. Some people don't want to
> be so involved. The board is the head of the Foundation, it is an
> essential part of it. This is the reason why the board is so dedicated.
> There are other organization that work otherwise, with more than hundred
> board members who mostly don't really take part in board work. But the
> WMF board works otherwise. We are a working board. There are experts who
> don't want to be so dedicated. They are friendly to us. They are ok to
> help if they can and if they have time for it, but they don't want to
> give that a dedicated commitment. They are still very valuable and
> helpful members of advisory board.

a) Could you give an example of an organisation with over 100 board members?

b) You haven't answered the question. Why couldn't the dedicated
experts that currently go on the board of trustees go on the advisory
board instead?