[Osmf-talk] OSMF Governance - Directors (was: 'OSMF Members Request for a General Meeting)
Johan & Marguerite
textline at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 18:15:36 UTC 2014
In the thread 'OSMF Members Request for a General Meeting)' I wondered why
it shouldn't be possible to get the number of directors down to 4 / 5 from
I don't understand why the board needs 7 people. Given the amount of
> work on the board it should be possible to get the board down to 4 or 5
> people. Which will more suit the amount of work, the effectiveness and
> lower the cost of a face-to-face meeting
"A larger board makes it , more difficult to gain complete control. Why do
you think Steve was suggesting reducing it to 3? Further a board which is
no longer a mashup of operational and strategic roles could and should have
a number of different view points and opinions."
To me, Simon's answer is quite vague. So, some questions to get things
1. what can an OSMF board control?
2. why is it necessary to have an unbundling of operational and strategic
3. what roles would suit an OSMF board? Operational, strategic?
4. what should be the tasks of an OSMF board?
5. when should an OSMF board consult the OSMF membership before taking a
decision, in order to get a wider range of viewpoints and opinions?
6. When should the membership take decisions, and when (based on mandate),
the OSMF board?
7. what should be changed (in size of the board, in the way the board
operates, in AoO etc.) to accomodate points 1-6?
Please refrain your answers/thoughts in this thread to content only. We
(the OSMF members) want things to change. This is your chance to have a
serious discussion based on arguments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk