[okfn-coord] Governance: Network members

[Jordan S Hatcher]

On 20 Oct 2009, at 20:25, Rufus Pollock wrote:

> This is a longish email but it's about something important so I'd ask
> all of you to please read it if you can.
>
> Recently I sent an email to okfn-discuss summarizing the public
> discussion on-list over the summer about OKF vision:
>
> <quote>
> Back in July we had a discussion about the "vision" for the OKF going
> forward. I've summarized that discussion on this wiki page:
>
>  <http://wiki.okfn.org/Vision/Suggestions>
>
> From that, it looks like there are 3 key areas we should work on:
>
>  1. Better explanation of "Why" (benefits of openness)
>    * http://wiki.okfn.org/Vision/Why
>  2. Better explanation of "What" - what we are doing, what our goals  
> are etc
>    * http://wiki.okfn.org/Vision/What
>  3. Clearer structure and governance
>    * http://wiki.okfn.org/Vision/Structure
>
> Comments on all of these would be most welcome.
>
> Right now I think the "chunkiest", and most important, is the last  
> of these.
>
> [1]: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2009-July/ 
> 001533.html
> </quote>
>
> From my reading of the emails from the summer it came through very
> clearly that even for those who are involved and supportive of the
> OKF's work there is a lack of clarity about the structure/governance
> of the OKF's activities. I think we need to address this going
> forward.
>
> Below is one specific proposal. Please let me know what you think.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
>
> The basic aim of the proposal is to create a separate strand of
> governance within the OKF setup that is more about the wider community
> "network" than the core "Foundation". The Board would remain unelected
> and would remain in charge of the Foundation but we would permit
> greater community involvement in the project and working group side of
> our work.
>
> Specifically my proposal is:
>
> 1. Create role of a "Network Members". Anyone may become a network
> member but membership must be approved by the Project Committee (see
> next paragraph). In general, Network Members are expected to be
> actively involved in OKF's activities.

I like this.  Do you see it as being individuals and projects?  Both  
legal and natural persons?  What about the chapter proposal floating  
around?
>
> 2. Create a Project Coordination Group (I'm open to renaming!). The
> PCG is elected from network members and deals with all project and
> working group related matters including incubating, approving,
> retiring project and working groups, monitoring progress, etc.

I like this as we definitely need a structure around how the board  
knows about what all is going on (I at least don't feel like I have a  
solid enough grip on this).  This seems like a good step forward, and  
could have built into it a requirement to report into the PCG on a set  
schedule if you are an OKF network member (even if you aren't on the  
PCG).

>
> 3. The PCG has monthly meetings (like the board), on the second
> Tuesday of every month.

So what is the process for reporting this activity to the board?

Also, am I right in reading this as the PCG would be the one to accept  
new projects, such as our recent example of One Click Orgs?  If so,  
what is the board involvement if there is a conflict of opinion  
between the two groups?

>
> 4. To bootstrap this process the Board will create the initial set of
> Network Members. All current working group and project members will be
> automatically become network members.

Is bootstrapping this also mean setting the PCG too, or just the class  
of people known as network members.


Thanks

~Jordan
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-coord mailing list
> okfn-coord at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-coord

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

More at: <http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
Co-founder:  <http://www.opendatacommons.org>

Join the "100 supporters pledge": <http://www.pledgebank.com/support-okfn 
 >
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age:  http://www.okfn.org/