[foundation-board] Separation of concerns

[Jason Kitcat]

On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:52, Jo Walsh wrote:
> Really at this point I want to see a cost/benefit analysis and establish some conditions: is this something the board can agree is desirable? (possibly not) and how can we judge when OKF is robust enough? Given the Omidyar news, there's now a 3-year breathing space with support assured for the "community" part. (I know this is new news but it would be very helpful to see the conditions attached to the Omidyar grant).

I don't think we've got anything definite from Omidyar legal yet...

> Would the Network need its own legal entity? Woul(d it need its own board? (Which could be seeded from the coord group and pursue an ASF-style meritocratic membership model?) Would it need its own (transparent) bank account?

Given the time and effort needed in running an organisation why would we want to duplicate that effort? I understand Jonathan's desire to support and grow the community aspects, ensuring they don't get suppressed by commercial angles, but I don't think they need be mutually exclusive unless the OKF is effectively forked.

>> I certainly don't think it would make management easier!
> 
> It could make budgeting / planning easier. OKF has recently taken on a couple of new people to do community engagement, which looks great.
> Are Lucy and Kat working for the Foundation or for the Network?
> Are they paid out of project funds, core funds, or general surplus?

Lucy is paid out of project funds. Kat is covered out of surplus at the moment but it's up for review if she stays on beyond the summer.

> My main problem with this is that the costs can be quite easily estimate, the benefits are unknowable but the risks are unquantifiable.
> For me the big risk is more people coming along and saying this:
> 
> "You're using community energy to build up consultancy / reputation; with secret decisions made by an small clique; and spending grant funding in ways for which it was not intended."
> 
> Now hopefully OKF is *not* doing any of these things but it would be helpful to be able to illustrate that fact - in ways that don't require extra overhead or effort but are a natural byproduct of the way things are run anyway. Which gets me back to where i started - with separation of concerns.

Accusations of decisions not being taken in the 'greater interest' can and will be levelled at any organisation - in government, private sector or third sector. But I think w're ok: In terms of grant funding, we must answer to the board and the funders to explain how that money is being spent.

The goal of the OKF is to promote open knowledge. If members/supporters/the community are not willing to pay for the consistent efforts of our core team in advancing our goal then we must find other ways of paying for it. So far that has been grants and consultancy. What we propose is to further diversify income sources which reduces our risks and makes the OKF more sustainable.

I think we are worrying about a problem which is not here. I'm not aware of a feeling that the OKF is profiting financially on the shoulders of volunteers. The sense I get is that people are excited by the catalytic role we are playing in advancing knowledge in their respective fields. Let's keep building on that!

All the best,
Jason
--
Jason Kitcat
Foundation Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation

+44 (0) 7956 886 508

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