[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] OSMF organizational change: Management Team
henk at toffehoff.nl
Thu Aug 11 21:25:45 UTC 2011
Thanks for you comments.
I agree with you to keep the structure as simple as possible.
But ... the structure we had, was not working effectively. We made some
changes in the way the board was functioning, but that didn't help. It was
time to grab the bull by the horns and have the daily trouble-shooting
issues (which was taking up most of the time of the board) delegated to the
collective working groups. The Management Team.
Currently the Working Groups already have a huge mandate. This does not
change. The Management Team is mostly taking up tasks that was with the
board. This does mean that the board itself needs to focus on a more
abstract level of decision making and that the Management Team doesn't need
approval of the board for every single decision.
We've also seen that the Working Groups were mostly working as individual
groups. Having the chairs of the WG meet each other, we hope there will be
more coordination between the different groups.
And about the communication. We really try to do better :-)
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Milo van der Linden <milo at dogodigi.net>wrote:
> I agree with the fact that a working group lead should be the primary
> interface to the board, but why introduce a new layer in the "chain of
> command"? It will only require more meetings, more spare time of the
> same group of people. A management team will generate more overhead
> then necessary. I would prefer "on demand" meetings between working
> group leaders that would, as with the working groups, simply be open
> in communication and accessible for others to eavedrop.
> I think more hierarchy would be bad. It slows things down by
> introducing chains of approval..
> I would suggest to give the working group leaders the authority to
> make decisions within their domain. This would be a sign of trust from
> the board to the working groups, a legit sign given the fact that all
> these volunteers only have one similar goal: To make the OSMF a kick
> ass foundation.
> Is it a problem for working group leaders to contact each other on
> more general topics? Do they really need the board as intermediar?
> Personally I wouldn' t ,
> I like the structure the OSMF has now. Although communications could
> be improved (more open, more decisions instead of meeting just to
> Introducing a management team scares me. It sounds hierarchic. It
> sounds if some people will try to become "more important" than others.
> It sounds like traditional company structure, I think it doesn't fit
> My 2 cents.
> Kind regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk