[Osmf-talk] clarification of the AoA amendment on board committees

[Allan Mustard]

Resending since osmf-talk rejected it the first time for being too long.

On 12/5/2020 9:59 AM, Allan Mustard wrote:
>
> Jochen,
>
> Thank you for raising your points.  Here are my responses:
>
>> I don't think this has to be done in the AoA, but it can be done in a
>> more
>> informal bye-law that can be changed and amended as the actual practice
>> of doing things evolves.
> The AoA says clearly that board committees may only consist of board
> members in paragraph 91.  That's why we need an amendment to the AoA.
>
>> If the OSMF hires
>> a sysadmin, is this under the purview of the "hiring committee", or the
>> "sysadmin working group"? We can not see the working groups as somehow
>> distinct from the OSMF. They have budgets, spend the money of the OSMF.
>> Decisions of working groups have been overruled by the board. 
> When I worked for the U.S. government, my personnel paperwork was
> handled by a Personnel (later Human Resources) Division, but I was
> supervised by the line division in which I worked.  When I was a
> grains analyst, I worked for the Grain and Feed Division; when I was
> an agricultural attache overseas, I worked for the attache service. 
> But my paperwork (payroll, travel orders, etc.) was handled by the
> Personnel Division.  This would be similar.  The Board committee would
> handle the paperwork but in the case of a sysadmin, the sysadmin would
> effectively work for the OWG, and take guidance from it, not the
> Board.  Same for software projects we fund, if we can get the EWG
> reinvigorated.  Board would handle the finances and contracting, but
> the EWG would provide the guidance. 
>
>> I don't see that there are clearly distinct types of "groups"
>> in the OSMF. We have what we call "working groups" and we can have more
>> working groups for all sorts of things. Some do more "administrative"
>> things, some more "community" things, but really, there is a continuum.
>> So why do we need a distinction here?
> It comes down to money and legal liability/responsibility.  The
> Working Groups don't have legal standing.  The Board does.  So the
> budget is the Board's responsibility, as is fundraising, and so are
> any contracts (including hiring of personnel and procurement of
> services).  We do this already for the OWG in leasing services,
> software licenses, bandwidth--the OWG decides what it needs and our
> treasurer pays the bills.  Because the workload on the Board has
> increased, the Board is asking for permission to enlist volunteers
> from the community to share the existing, larger workload.
>
> cheers,
> apm
>