[foundation-board] Separation of concerns

[Jason Kitcat]

Personally, I wouldn't favour this proposal at this juncture. I don't think the organisation is sufficiently robust nor has the capacity to cope with such a split. I also think we would risk losing the beneficial overlaps our diverse different activities currently have.

I certainly don't think it would make management easier!

All the best,
Jason

On 21 Jun 2011, at 21:49, Jo Walsh wrote:

> Though we'll have a lot to get through at the moment, it seems like the next board meeting would be an opportune time to discuss separating the concerns of the Foundation - on the one hand the surplus-returning consultancy and custom development business - on the other the community of projects and working groups, the volunteer efforts.
> 
> http://wiki.okfn.org/suggestions/Activity_Split - a very tiny stub page that may not even have any words in it yet...
> 
> Cost/benefit analysis seems necessary here - maybe a formal checklist process would help? Doodles while travelling:
> 
> PROs - of splitting -                 of not splitting
> 
> Transparency (what goes where)        ???
> Hopes to make management easier
> Hopes for boost to volunteer activity
> 
> 
> CONs - of splitting -                 of not splitting
> 
> Time-consuming                           Risk of reputation loss
> Risk of community dissatisfaction        ditto
> Risk of bogging down in governance chat  Need for more oversight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-board mailing list
> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

--
Jason Kitcat
Foundation Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation

+44 (0) 7956 886 508

http://www.okfn.org
http://twitter.com/jasonkitcat