[Foundation-l] strategic planning process update

[Ray Saintonge]

Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>   
>> "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the
>> decision-making process?"
>>
>> this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody
>> prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about
>> said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we
>> will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's
>> good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide
>> what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
>>     
> The simple answer is: At the end of this process, there will be a
> community-developed plan with a set of recommendations. The Foundation
> board will vote on that plan at its board meeting in November 2010.
>
> Assuming we pull off what we're trying to pull off, I expect that to
> be a rubber stamp. In other words, if this is a good process, if we
> put lots of thought into it, if a large, diverse group of stakeholders
> are engaged, I think the board will go with the plan. That is my
> opinion, not an official statement of fact. :-)
>
> I expect people from the Foundation to actively engage in the process
> with everyone else. I hope that holds true for other stakeholders,
> such as the Chapters, and I would very much love to see all of our
> stakeholders both engage in the process and then go through some
> official approval process. I'm optimistic that this will happen. I
> know that several Chapters are already engaged in their own strategic
> planning processes, and I expect those will align nicely with this
> movement-wide process. I hope that individual projects get more
> actively engaged as well, as I think this is a wonderful opportunity
> to reflect together and to take advantage of common resources for this
> effort.
>   

The question, "Who will decide ...?" touches upon the fundamental 
paradox of empowerment. In democratic institutions the ideal is to bring 
decision making power to those who are ruled by those decisions, yet 
this conflicts with the institutionalized deference implicit in Pavlo's 
question.

An end-game where the legal entity applies a rubber stamp is fine, but a 
prerequisite for that is that a decision has already been made in some 
manner.

I believe that we live in an era when there is an essential mistrust of 
institutions ... beginning with governments.  The current health care 
debate in the United States more than amply gives us examples on both 
sides of that issue.  The internet has provided tools for questioning 
institutions.  Claims and promises that could heretofore be made as 
marketing ploys are no longer believed when they are inconsistent with 
facts that are easily discovered by a broad range of people who 
previously lacked the resouces for such discoveries.

If this rampant cynicism were limited to opinions about governments the 
situation could be tolerable, but it rubs off on all sorts of 
institutional settings.  It may be comforting to know that someone else 
will make the decisions; that relieves one of having to give serious 
thought about often very complex issues.  If, however, those decisions 
are not trusted they will never be completely successful.

Ec