[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
frederik at remote.org
Thu Oct 23 12:47:09 UTC 2014
On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing board
> members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a clean start.
A radical step, but I like it. I'd be more than happy to withdraw my
candidacy if there was a spirit of rebooting. We wouldn't even need
seven new candidates; we could simply elect a few and they could then
add new un-elected board members as they like (article 79 in the AoA).
Instead of rushing through such an unprecedented measure, we could also
do it in a more orderly fashion: Have this year's AGM decide that the
board should prepare to resign altogether at the next AGM, and prepare
the election of a full new board. This event would then be known long in
advance and people would have time to prepare their bids for a seat on
the rebooted body. Independent of the actual legal powers of the AGM,
certainly no board member could ignore such an express declaration by
the very people they're serving.
Another thing, while we're throwing doors wide open. In many political
systems around the world, the electorate doesn't elect a group of people
with wildly different goals. Instead, people form parties and the
electorate decides for a party, and the party will then form the
government. (Grossly simplifying, I know.) That way, people in
government have to fight each other to a much lesser degree than they
would if government were comprised of people following different
political views and goals.
By appointing seven directors individually, on the one hand we have the
advantage that they can keep each other in check; we, as the electorate,
don't have to be super careful, if we elect someone who's incompetent or
a kleptomaniac, the others on the board will hopefully notice and fix it
somehow. On the other hand, there's the danger of seeding the board with
a couple of difficult personalities that make life hard and reduce
productiveness for the rest of them.
Should we perhaps vote for "teams"? Just like a team can assemble and
bid for holding a SotM, should we allow a team to bid for being the OSMF
board for a year?
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the talk