In Gnome, we found it *very* awkward to have an executive director who
is also a BOD member.
Don't make this mistake, by making it impossible up front.
- Jim
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:34 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
The goal is to have the benefits of the Executive
Roles and responsibilities of an Executive Director.
Both Edward and Greg narrowed in on the key point to the cost benefit
analysis regarding an Executive Director. It is not a yes no decision.
We as a community must determine how to organize ourselves to maximize
the reward of having an
Well, if it's Walter, no problems. He has done an amazing job so far,
and we all know that he has the right instincts.
Now we can discuss whom Walter needs to take care of making things
happen while he is setting directions and goals, raising money,
recruiting people and organizations, and such
The goal is to have the benefits of the Executive Director while also
mitigating risk. Comments inline.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, David Farning wrote:
Executive Director
The decision to have an Executive Director boils down to one question,
'Do the benefits of having a single point of control
Background
For the past couple of months, we have been working on setting up the
governance infrastructure for Sugar Labs.
We have laid out the basics of the membership structure. Our members
are our owners. In for profit organizations, owners invest their money
in the expectation that they
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 05:08:26PM -0500, David Farning wrote:
The decision to have an Executive Director boils down to one question,
'Do the benefits of having a single point of control outweigh the risks
of a single point of control?'
IMO: Yes. Especially as sugarlabs is just getting
I find this a surprising statement. Is this a consensus of the
governing board, or your personal opinion?
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 3:08 PM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Background
For the past couple of months, we have been working on setting up the
governance infrastructure for
