Re: Some perspective on the relative importannce of the board.

[Leslie Proctor <proctors pacbell net>]

Both Jim and Nat make very good points.  I've been
saying this all along - We're expecting things from
this board that no other non-profit group in my
experience expects - and I have worked with dozens of
non-profit organizations.

Boards of non-profits:
-give legitimacy to the organization
-provide an overall direction for the organization
-liaise with other organizations
-HELP RAISE MONEY

I'm currently on two boards of non-profits here in
SLC.  As we're looking at adding board members, we're
looking for people who are wired into the business and
government sectors, because they will help us move our
agenda further.  We're looking for people who can call
other top execs in town and get (a check, a
commitment, involvement, etc.)  On the one board we
have someone from the Chamber of Commerce, a former
city commissioner, head of a broad outreach program.
We're all about to start making phone calls to add
other politicians, business leaders, etc.  My time
committment is minimal - 3-4 hours per month.  

So why isn't GNOME following this extremely standard
protocol?  Why are we expecting that 11 people (who
mind you, are people who do so much anyway) to do the
work that we're all supposed to be doing?  

We also need a diverse board who can help with these
missions - but if you're expecting that they're going
to perform miracles - fuggitaboutit.  

We need to form committees, who then are charged with
writing a roadmap and timeline for their efforts. 
Board members could be part of those committees, but
not lead them.  We have two that are very well run -
elections and the release committee.  They have
timelines.  We need to add: Education, Marketing (we
have list, but no regular meetings, no timeline), Web
site, government relations, etc.  Committees would
report to a board member, who gives reports to the
entire board - those reports go into the minutes for
all of us to see and monitor their progress.  

An additional benefit - committees give people coming
to the organization a place where they can get
involved.  Right now we're pushing people away,
because they have a hard time getting a handle on what
to do, etc.  

Those miracles you're expecting?  It's up to us - all
of us together.



--- Jim Gettys <jg freedesktop org> wrote:

> In general, I think Nat's points are well taken.
> 
> There is one other major function of the board Nat
> overlooks: liaison
> with other organizations and companies.  When
> working with one of them,
> one often almost has to be a board member, as it may
> involve items that
> must remain confidential (temporarily, usually, if
> things go forward to
> a conclusion; permanently if such discussions do not
> make progress), and
> may involve speaking and negotiating for the
> foundation as a whole.  An
> example was my negotiations with Bitstream over Vera
> fonts.  How much of
> a burden this is, is an interesting question, though
> I bet as we gain
> more traction on the desktop, that the amount of
> this work will
> increase.  I make this bet, as, just in the font
> case, I now know of
> four different organizations/companies involved in
> similar situations on
> fonts alone, that have come to my attention over the
> last 6 weeks.
> 
> Part of why I'm recommending a bit more structure to
> the board while
> retaining its size is to hold officers to a higher
> standard on time
> availability, while acknowledging that some of the
> board has less time
> available, but may be able to bring wider
> experience, representation and
> viewpoints to the board.
> 			Regards,
> 				- Jim
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 09:32 -0400, Nat Friedman
> wrote:
> > I should have written the subject as it is in the
> corrected version
> > above.
> > 
> > Nat
> > 
> > On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 02:13 -0400, Nat Friedman
> wrote:
> > > The board of the GNOME foundation is populated
> by elected directors.  
> > > 
> > > These people are elected to make decisions.
> > > 
> > > But, the board has almost no decision-making
> power.
> > > 
> > > In fact, about the only power the board has is
> to spend money.  For
> > > example, hiring Tim Ney.  Or, firing him.  Right
> now, Tim is already
> > > working for the foundation.  So just about the
> only thing the board can
> > > do is fire him.
> > > 
> > > In theory, another power the board has is to
> decide where GUADEC is.
> > > 
> > > In reality, only one or two groups apply to host
> GUADEC every year and
> > > it is usually immensely obvious which one is
> better suited.  
> > > 
> > > Even so, this decision can take weeks and weeks.
>  Why?  Because the only
> > > thing the board can do is to decide to fire Tim
> Ney or choose where
> > > GUADEC is going to be hosted.  And naturally,
> the board has to savor
> > > this power.  Quick decisions would just ruin the
> fun!  Besides, there's
> > > nothing else to do but argue over the one or two
> decisions the board can
> > > make.
> > > 
> > > So we have an elected board of directors with a
> de minimus rationing of
> > > power.
> > > 
> > > That what the *board* has.  
> > > 
> > > What the *foundation* has is work that needs
> doing to promote GNOME and
> > > make it better.  Lots and lots and lots of work
> to do.  
> > > 
> > > Work to make the GNOME web site better, work to
> market GNOME better and
> > > explain it, work to solicit sponsorship and
> endorsement of governments,
> > > work to organize global training seminars like
> Trolltech does for Qt.
> > > And on and on and on.  Jeff Waugh has summarized
> this work nicely a
> > > number of times.
> > > 
> > > Right now, much of that work de facto falls on
> the shoulders of an
> > > elected board.  Most of the people on the board
> are very busy and cannot
> > > do that work.  And because the board of the
> GNOME foundation is a set of
> > > elected positions, the set of people who are
> first drawn upon to do that
> > > work *is limited to the set of people who were
> elected*.  It is a
> > > limited set.  It cannot grow.
> > > 
> > > Electing people to positions makes them feel
> good about themselves but
> > > doesn't necessarily motivate them to do a bunch
> of boring work.  It
> > > would be better to find volunteers to do all
> that work, and remove the
> > > silent chilling power of the board to discourage
> people from
> > > "officially" taking on the work of GNOME.
> > > 
> > > Another thing to do would be to give the GNOME
> board more power.  
> > > 
> > > The original idea of the GNOME foundation was as
> a way of funneling
> > > money around.  In 1999 GNOME won $30,000 in the
> beanie awards and it was
> > > stored with the FSF because there was no GNOME
> foundation.  So we said:
> > > let's create a nonprofit that can accept and
> direct money.
> > > 
> > > You could give the board more power by giving
> them money.  Then they'd
> > > have to figure out something to do with it. 
> They're good people, they'd
> > > probably work out a way to make GNOME better.
> > > 
> > > That was the original idea, after all.
> > > 
> > > Nat
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-list mailing list
> > > foundation-list gnome org
> > >
>
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-list mailing list
> > foundation-list gnome org
> >
>
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
>
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>