[okfn-coord] Governance: Network members

[Rufus Pollock]

2009/10/21 Jordan S Hatcher <jordan at opencontentlawyer.com>:
[...]

>> 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.

BTW: there is a typo here. Project Committee should be Project
Coordination Group!

> I like this.  Do you see it as being individuals and projects?  Both legal
> and natural persons?  What about the chapter proposal floating around?

I think both legal and natural persons could be network members.
Regarding chapters I think this may need to be a little different
(they are more autonomous) but one way to integrate them would be to
have someone nominated from chapter to be on PCG.

>> 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).

Sounds good though we may not want to be too cumbersome to start with.

>> 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?

I think Board should have at least one member who is on PCG and who
reports from PCG to 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?

Yes PCG would be the one to accept new projects. Idea here is to
clearly delegate project management. I would prefer it if Board could
delegate this to PCG subject perhaps to basic guidelines (e.g.
projects sign up to service agreement, pledge to uphold basic
principles of open knowledge, meritocracy, tolerance etc)

>> 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.

It would be both.

Rufus