[Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/8/28 Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> a) Could you give an example of an organisation with over 100 board members?
>>
> IOC has, ok only more than 70 members, not totally 100.

The IOC Executive Board (which is the relevant body to compare to) has
15 members.

http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/ioc/executive/index_uk.asp

>> 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?
>>
> Actually I had, because not all advisory board members want to have that
> sort of dedication.

That's not an answer at all. I'm not talking about all advisory board
members. I'm talking about people that are currently board members, so
obviously are that dedicated. You really aren't listening. My proposal
isn't complicated, you should be able to understand it.

> There are other reasons too. For example because an
> advisory board member don't have certain authority against the staff,
> and because in a lot of cases you cannot definitively say here ends the
> strategic planning and there starts the othervise function.

Now we're getting to some real reasons. I don't agree regarding
authority - the board as a collective body has the authority, they can
exercise that authority on behalf of an advisory board member if
necessary. The difficulty in drawing lines between different parts of
the role is valid, though. I expect it can be overcome with some
effort, however.