[okfn-coord] Some thoughts about mailing list access

[Rufus Pollock]

I agree with everything Becky says here. To summarize (my conclusions)
based on the discussion so far:

1. I'd propose that we formalize our "membership" setup. Membership
will be explicitly based on contribution (as is stated already in the
governance document). To get the process started we can make all our
currently "implicit" members, i.e. those on working groups and
projects, into "formal" members.

3. Board membership is based on meritocracy and a willingness to serve
and is appointed by existing board (so not elected -- though this can
be changed in the future if shown to be worth the effort involved)

4. (Most importantly) Make a concerted effort to move most discussion
of designers, new projects, and even funding onto the public lists
(primarily okfn-discuss). This list would then be confined to issues
that absolutely had to be kept "private".

Rufus

2009/6/10 Becky Hogge <becky.hogge at gmail.com>:
> 2009/6/10 paula le dieu <paula at ledieu.org>:
>> I would certainly support opening the more general conversations for public
>> access.
>>
>> I wonder also, if it is the right time (ie. early in the Boards more formal
>> instantiation) to build in Board membership review periods. This ensures
>> that you are not burdened with a board that no longer fits the
>> organisation's needs but also builds in regular opportunities for public
>> engagement in the Board's membership?
>
> I think it's a good idea that Board membership be for a set time
> period, with the possibility of renewal. So, since we've taken in (no
> pun intended) Jordan, James and Paula in the past month, we might say
> (retrospectively, or among ourselves) that this was for a fixed term
> of say, two years, or three years, or whatever, at which point we
> would invite them to consider committing to the organisation for a
> further term, or otherwise leaving to make space for someone else. At
> this point we could also put out a call to the community to nominate
> other potential Board members, who could then be considered by the
> Board.
>
> For continuity, it would be useful if our "terms" didn't end all at
> the same time. And for efficiency (in terms of any recruitment process
> they spawn), it would be useful if they didn't end at several
> different times, so there is obviously a balance to be struck there.
>
> As for electing the Board, I'm deeply sceptical, and would await a
> sustained call from the community that this sort of governance
> excercise is what they'd like to see the Board spend time doing. I
> note from http://www.okfn.org/about that the okfn values centre upon
> "open discussion, meritocracy and tolerance", and therefore suggest we
> continue to openly tolerate MJ Ray without automatically ceding to his
> calls for democracy ;)
>
> As to Jo's point about taking the conversation about designers to the
> -discuss list, I think that's a great idea. I think I'm just a bit shy
> because I haven't posted there and I don't know who's on it. But I'll
> gladly take the plunge...
>
> Cheers
>
> Becky