Hi, On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/11/24 Luis Villa <[email protected]>: >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >> [...] >>>> What do people think? What is good/bad, in need of amendment or >>>> clarification? >>> >>> I guess I'd question the underlying assumption: >>> >>>> ## Background to this >>>> >>>> Discussion over the summer indicated that clearer structure and >>>> governance is needed, see: >>>> >>>> <http://wiki.okfn.org/Vision/Structure> >>> >>> My recollection of the discussion was that clearer structure was >>> definitely needed, but not necessarily governance. Governance of this >>> sort can be helpful if there is a lack of decision-making capability, >> >> What exactly would be the distinction between clearer structure and >> clearer governance here? (I think you are right there is one but I'm a >> bit hazy on what it would mean concretely ...) > > Well, the problem I was having in the earlier discussion was that I > was having a hard time knowing what all the projects of OKFN were, > where to find information about the projects, who key volunteers are, > etc. I'd consider that structural information. I can imagine. What do you think would be a better structure? I had a lot on the website. Well, you are right.... we should reorganize this page. I don't know if the for the website used software is open to question if not, I'll propose the following structure: 1. Merging of section "Projects" and "All Our Projects". Pictures and descriptions are great, maybe it is possible to create a template for it ?? Moving of section "Events, Workshops and Working Groups" to ?? well, "get involved" 2. Retired Projects 3. Starting a Project (this page should be linked from "get involved") as well > Governance goes beyond knowing 'who are the key volunteers I should > contact if I want to get involved' to something like 'who is formally > charged with decision making', and the list of things you've discussed > earlier in this thread seems a lot closer to the latter than the > former (but I may be misunderstanding.) > >>> but as far as I can see the problem here is lack of bodies/resources, >>> not lack of decision-making capability. In fact, heavyweight >>> governance structures can be a significant drain on time/resources- >> >> Quite agree. Aim here is not to wheel in some heavy decision-making >> apparatus but have a clearer idea on whose involved and doing what. My >> hope would be that e.g. meetings of Project Committee would be focused >> on the "doing stuff" end of the spectrum e.g. what particular projects >> are doing, helping to coordinate that, sorting out resources etc, >> rather than dealing with too much heavy decision-making. > > I guess I see those tasks as the province of 'whoever is doing the > work at any given time' rather than a formally enumerated body. The > former is flexible and ad hoc- whoever shows up shows up, and you work > from there; the latter seems more fixed- you have to Be On The > Committee. > > But maybe I'm just reading too much into the word 'Committee'? Yes. I'd would interpret this in this more flexible way as well, because I don't believe there are so many people involved that this degree of organization is necessary. > Luis :::claudia _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
