[Evergreen-governance-l] Basic rules of governance draft

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Okay, Dan and Galen.  I'm convinced that leaving the committees in their
informal state vis-a-vis this document is best.  No "official" committees.
No board liaison.

I'm just wondering if there should be something more in the board
responsibilities about whatever committees/task forces/etc do in the name of
the community...  Maybe not but it seems funny to establish that the Board
will only step in if the committees ask for help.  Is that really what we
want?  I'm sorry I don't have a good suggestion for how to change that
language but it still doesn't seem quite right.

And about that quorum..yes, I'm very worried about having such a large group
and expecting to have a quorum.  Have we EVER had a quorum on any of our
calls?  I'm all for broad participation but I think people agreeing to be on
the board need to be willing to commit the time to actively participate.

Lori


On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Dan Scott <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:13:41AM -0800, Lori Bowen Ayre wrote:
> > Dan,
> >
> > Minor correction.  In 2.5, you say "Foundation Board" instead of just
> > "Board."
>
> Thanks! Will correct for the next revision.
>
> > In Section 2.6 " "A majority of the Board constitutes a quorum for the
> > transaction of business. " confuses me.  Does this mean we have to have
> at
> > least half plus one of EVERYONE on the Board in attendance to make a
> > decision?  And then if we do, majority rules?
>
> I think that's the definition of a quorum, yes. You don't want a Board
> meeting with just two attendees to be able to make decisions, I think,
> so we need to define that somewhere.
>
> > Jim, I don't see any conflict with 1.3 and 2.1.  I read that as the
> > committees are empowered to make decisions but can call on the Board if
> they
> > need help.
>
> That's my reading; it's a consistent position between 1.3 and 2.1 that
> the Project is effectively decentralized in nature and that the Board is
> the decision-making body of last resort.
>
> > This does suggest that we might need to (eventually) determine how these
> > committees are established and empowered to make decisions on behalf of
> the
> > community. Or, perhaps it would be wise to recognize the committees that
> are
> > established as of now and leave that up to the next version.  I don't
> think
> > we want this Board in charge of what working groups can emerge and who
> can
> > run them.  Seems like a larger discussion for the community to be
> involved
> > in and it may be just as well to let the needs emerge.
>
> I agree with the latter sentiment; I think it's premature to try to
> formalize what is an essentially organic process. People rally around an
> area that they want to tackle and improve (web site, docs, code,
> marketing, testing), if the resources are available. Perhaps if the Board
> starts
> to build a warchest of funding, there might be options for the
> Board to initiate efforts in areas where the community currently lacks
> the will or resources, but currently it's a bottom-up effort.
>
> > So, I'm in favor of naming the current committees in this document and
> > leaving the formation of more committees to the next round of decisions.
> We
> > may then need to decide what an official committee is versus a task force
> > versus interest groups and whatever else we realize we need.
>
> I'm not convinced that we even need to name these committees in the
> document itself. If the Communication team/Web team/Website group are
> off happily improving the Web site, how does naming that committee in
> the Rules of Governance help them or the project or the Board? I
> understand the desire for understanding who is doing what work in the
> community, or where there are gaps, but I'm not sure that writing that
> into the Rules of Governance is the way to solve that problem.
>
> > And, shouldn't there be a Developers committee too?
>
> I did mention in 2.1 the "Developer Team" as one of the recognized
> community leadership groups.
>
> > How about this...could have a "Board Advisor"  or "Board Liaison" on each
> > committee as a way to keep the Board and committees linked but autonomous
> > enough to move committee work forward without having to get official
> > permission from the Board?
>
> That seems like a very top-down structure, which runs counter to the
> decentralized getting-things-done nature of the project. In my opinion,
> the point of the Evergreen Community meetings is to enable all parts of
> the community to communicate their efforts with one another and identify
> areas that need improvement or collaboration across working areas; to
> date, each working group/committee has done a pretty good job of finding
> a representative to report on their efforts to the Community, and has
> been publishing their agendas / minutes in an open and inviting way for
> others to join in and understand what they working towards. The Board
> should certainly be a participant in the Evergreen Community meetings;
> but I think it would be a duplication of effort if committees were
> expected to report to the community and also report separately to the
> Board.
>



-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant
The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com
(707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre at galecia.com

<Lori.Ayre at galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID,
filtering,
workflow optimization, and materials handling
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/evergreen-governance-l/attachments/20110302/81c23958/attachment.htm