[Eg-oversight-board] Proposal: reduce the size of the EOB

[Chauncey Montgomery]

Galen,
What you have outlined seems reasonable. I agree with the smaller group 
being more agile. There are several other boards I serve on (or work 
with) and it seems that the smaller groups are more efficient and also 
more engaged.
Chauncey


On 01/15/2014 08:09 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we have elections coming up during the Evergreen conference, I
> would like to float a proposal to reduce the size of the EOB to
> streamline decision-making and encourage broader ground-up
> participation in project activities.
>
> The EOB has certain direct functions that do not require that there be
> eleven members.  For example, liaising with Conservancy on trademark
> matters does not require the direct involvement of many people.
>
> There are some activities where the board authorizes expenditure and
> receipt of funds held in trust for the project, and those of course
> must remain in its remit.  However, both the conference committee and
> the merchandising committee take most of their membership from outside
> the board.  Other groups, such as the developers, DIG, and the web
> team, have board members that participate, but to date those groups
> have not requested significant draws on project funds, nor have they
> required EOB supervision in order to perform their functions.
>
> Besides working with Conservancy on the oversight of project funds,
> where I see a major role for the board is as a (though not /the/)
> nexus for identifying and obtaining resources to further community
> goals.  However, I believe that a smaller group would be able to serve
> that function more nimbly.
>
> I propose that the EOB be reduced to seven members via attrition.
> There are four EOB positions that are coming vacant; we could choose
> to amend the rules of governance to not fill them (although if we do
> it in fell swoop, we should give thought to having some of the
> remaining positions be made open for election so that the overall
> community does not end up waiting two years to elect new
> representatives).  We could also take two years at this, reducing the
> board to 9 for the upcoming year and to 7 in 2015.
>
> I welcome feedback on this proposal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
>