David Recordon wrote:
I'm not sure if we need a more formal process, though what you proposed (of self nominations) is different than last time when one board member nominated another.
The other notable difference is that last time the officer nominations happened after a month or two when folks had already settled into certain roles, or had at least shown an interest/aptitude for them.
I need some more time to think about companies as officers of the Foundation -- it feels a bit strange -- though allowing it would then effect the composition of the executive committee which is currently the four officers (Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary) in addition to one corporate board member (which seems to go against "we are one board in all respects other those specifically called out in the bylaws"). If the officers were allowed to be companies, then it does not seem like the fifth member of the Executive Committee should be limited to a corporate board member.
It might be helpful to consider the practical implications of a corporate board member serving as an officer:
* If for some reason the company was to change its representative, that would also change the officer too.
* The company would be effectively promising to devote company time to that role. (For a community board member, it's assumed that they're personally responsible for getting the work done; if they want to do it on company time they need to negotiate with their employer separately.)
I can't think of any other significant differences, personally. _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
