[foundation-board] an interesting potential coordinator

[Jo Walsh]

dear Paula, i just want to say i think this is great, many points to 
re-start from, wish i had energy to digest and respond properly right now.

To pick out a couple of your suggestions, i like the project board idea 
- in OSGeo having a project management committee is necessary to become 
a proper foundation project - it has really helped move projects like 
GDAL on from "benevolent dictator" mode. I mooted this on the CKAN list 
and started a task list for CKAN too, I'll discuss more on coord.
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-discuss/2010-September/000494.html

Mark MacGillivray is making an interesting start with his OKF Review - 
maybe he'll get into the depth of two-way reporting protocol that you 
outline. I hope to have dinner with him and PaolaDM next weekend and pin 
him down a bit (hopefully not necessary to do that physically)
http://wiki.okfn.org/p/OKFreview

So glad you wrote this long thoughtful conciliatory mail.


jo
On 04/09/2010 12:05, paula le dieu wrote:
> I feel a awkward jumping into this conversation having been so obviously
> absent from the last year of discussion about many of the subjects
> covered. I apologise if I state the obvious or revisit areas that have
> already been discussed and rejected and obviously this is all just my
> opinion...here goes...
>
>
> The most contentious issues seem to be around specific roles and
> responsibilities particularly as they relate to reporting obligations
> and access to clear point/s of accountable, timely advise and issue
> resolution. There are lots of other concerns but I have already written
> way too much so will contain it to the above.
>
> Reporting Obligations: As a Board member I share a concern about the
> need for the accountability of funded projects and for financial
> management more generally. It is critical that we have exemplary
> financial reporting and management both because it is required practice
> but also because we owe a duty of transparency to the all participants
> in the network and to the public. Also as has been noted already, this
> last year has seen us taking on projects that puts us in the spotlight
> with respect to financial transparency and accountability particularly
> when it involves public money.
>
> I note that we have already put in place accounting software and
> developed a relationship with professional accounting support. In a
> separate thread there is a discussion ongoing about a treasury role at
> the Foundation Board level. All of which will help assuage the concerns
> held by the Board and our issues of personal accountability but may not
> be enough to deliver the transparency I think we need to provide to the
> network.
>
> I wonder if what we need is a short term burst of paid activity (I think
> Jordan might have suggested something similar and Jo also covered
> individual project reporting) from a paid specialist to establish two
> way reporting protocols across the network. This would cover all
> reporting - financial, project progress etc and would cover all projects
> not just funded projects. The goal would be to establish appropriate
> reporting protocols that enable all projects to regularly communicate
> progress, risks, issues, resource use and requirements etc as well as
> establish clear protocols for how that information is collated and made
> available to the board, the network and the public. For funded projects
> it is required, for non funded projects we seek to find the balance
> between ease of providing reports and value of access to an overall view
> of the network as an incentive to participate. This work would be a
> fixed term contract with clear deliverables and delayed bonus built in
> for successful adoption.
>
> A great deal is already done in this area but I am struck that we (the
> Board) seem to be very concerned about the lack of visibility we have
> and it is making us anxious about our responsibilities in the face of
> being called to account. This is possibly driving us to an assumption
> that we need to create a centralised organisational structure as it is a
> model that is easiest for a Board to implement and provides a clear,
> named individual to hold to account. I believe there is a fundamental
> difference between having a person/s who takes on the responsibility for
> making sense of, and presenting information, such as an accountant
> making sense of collated budget reports from funded projects; and having
> someone who we hold accountable for the decisions and priorities
> inherent in the information (ie. ultimately accountable for the
> financial standing of the org).
>
> There is clearly a need for the former but I share Jo's concerns that
> the latter moves us fundamentally away from very idea of the network. To
> embody that kind of responsibility almost always engenders a need within
> that individual to control and direct all related activity (just as we
> are seeking to do to make us more secure in the face of our
> responsibilities). This brings into question the independence of
> activities across the network and I fear will come to inhibit the
> enthusiasm brought to new and established projects alike particularly if
> non-funded. In short I believe we need to find the expertise to support
> the act of reporting rather than the expertise to ensure we like what we
> read within the reports.
>
> Issue resolution and timely advise/clarification:
>
> I admit that I don't know much about the specific case mentioned in the
> thread. I am assuming that it relates to funded projects. As such the
> following may be entirely missing the mark.
>
> We have put in place a governing board with a chairperson for the OKF.
> As such we have an ultimate resolution and clarification mechanism
> already in place for issues that cannot be resolved any other way.
> However, the development of funded projects has introduced the need for
> clarification of issues that the network has previously not had
> experience managing, with a timeliness that does not work well with the
> network and with accountability complexities that make it unclear who
> ultimately bears the brunt should it all go wrong. In this case I wonder
> if we should be considering instantiating small project boards to
> provide advise and oversight for funded projects as well as ensuring
> that the decision making limits of the project manager are perhaps more
> clearly articulated from the beginning. It may be that the strategic
> board has a role to play here for all issues other than financial?
>
> I am going to leave it here as if you have managed to wade this far then
> frankly I have tortured you enough.