Giving real powers to the Governance Board #6
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -30,16 +30,11 @@ growth, the Foundation and its founders strongly believe in the need for Communi | |
|
|
||
| The FOSS United Community, with support from the Foundation, will elect representatives from the | ||
| Community to a Governing Board. The Governing Board, building on their deep expertise in the | ||
| Indian and Global FOSS ecosystems, will represent the broader FOSS community, steer the activities at the Foundation, establish | ||
| guidelines for the Community to follow, and broadly help us achieve our stated objectives. | ||
|
|
||
| Please note that the Governing Board differs from the Board of Directors or a Governing Body, | ||
| as you might see from some of the examples listed above. | ||
|
|
||
| The elected representatives of the FOSS United Governing Board (hereafter referred to as GB), | ||
| shall be the primary body responsible for guiding and overseeing the activities of the FOSS United | ||
|
|
@@ -70,6 +65,16 @@ The GB may invite guests to participate in consideration of specific topics (but | |
| may not participate in any voting matters). | ||
|
|
||
| Primary activities of the GB shall be, but not limited to: | ||
| * represent the broad FOSS community of India | ||
| * ensure long term survival and growth of the FOSS United community | ||
| * set long term goals for the FOSS United community | ||
| * vote and approve the budget for the year | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does this also mean that the GB is legally liable? You seem to be giving "real" powers to the Governing Board without also making it clear whether or not they will be legally liable for the Foundation's activities. One of the primary reasons why we didn't go this far with the MVP charter is that "NGOs" that follow the structure you propose commonly have "fixed" Governing Boards that haven't changed in many years. I personally can't name a single Indian NGO that
can you name any?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. The GB has no liability because it does not get any remuneration from the Foundation. The legal liabilities will like with the Directors / auditors etc. Approving a budget via a GB is a proposed internal mechanism within the Foundation. As far as prior practice, there is no reason we can't be the first? Personally the NGO model is broken for me is because it is too far bent in favour of donors rather than beneficiaries. Maybe we set new standards? |
||
| * vote and approve on all policies regarding operation of the foundation including organisation structure, roles etc. | ||
| * set a fund raising target for the year | ||
| * review staff performance quarterly and check alignment with stated goals | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. as much as possible, we tried to add prior art for the points stated in the charter document could you please point to an organization, indian or international, where a Governing Board-like structure reviews individual staff performance and checks alignment with stated goals? or is this an experiment, without any precedent?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this could be a good case study ;-). I haven't done any study of "prior art", but this makes sense to me for our context (and also as a founder)
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. We already have one failed governance experiment - I would very much prefer starting small and building up, and not risk becoming one more failed case study
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. IMO we risk being another failed case study if we don't fix governance. |
||
| * review the performance of the CEO and appointment of a new CEO if required | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. it'll be good to add a frequency here - every month? every quarter? every year? There was a problem hiding this comment. IMO, we're going too far with this. I am in favour of such changes over a long term, but not immediately. Is the concern here that the "range of the GB's powers" isn't clear ? If that's the case then the scope of the GB's "real powers" can be clarified rather than listing these under "Primary activities of the GB". For this year, we have a set an implicit target - that we (the GB) will push FOSS United towards being visibly less adhoc, better documented and structured. Encourage volunteers and initiatives by making everything driven by workgroups that involve volunteers. Adding all these things will distract from the targets for this year. Including these will also expose us to the avoidable pain of somebody coming at the end of the year saying "did you do all that". Frankly - I don't think we have the bandwidth to do all that, and we're not going to take this up this year. So that's why these shouldn't be merged in right now. The GB doesn't lack powers, frankly. We are just being realistic in terms of what we can achieve in a short term. Amendments are the path that we'll take. Also, note that we don't envision that the governance board will function arbitrarily. It will have to function in a well documented way to build community trust. Even if we were to take all these up, the precursor will be setting up the procedures for such things.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Once a year would be good IMO
For me, this is fundamental to the architecture of governance. Otherwise like @mngshm says, let's not call it "governance board" but "advisory board" |
||
| * maintain a public policy "document" that maintains the position of FOSS United on all major policy initiatives | ||
| * ensure a consent mechanism within the entire community before new public policy positions are taken by the foundation | ||
|
Comment on lines
+76
to
+77
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. these two points belong in a separate policy charter - the governing board can vote and approve such a policy charter
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Since the GB is the only accountability mechanism, hence included here. |
||
| * vote on all decisions or matters coming before the GB; and | ||
| * approve procedures for the nomination and election of any representative of the Community | ||
| to the GB and any Officer or other positions created by the GB; and | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The FOSS United Governing Board cannot represent the broader FOSS community because the Indian FOSS community is large and diverse. At best, we can represent the "FOSS United Community". Saying that the GB "will represent the broader FOSS community" is hubris
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is no "definition" of the FOSS United community as there are no memberships. Also the purpose of FOSS United is to represent the entire FOSS community and the elected GB is the "best effort" for this. The aim of the GB should be to represent the entire community as time goes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The FOSS United community is people who choose to associate with FOSS United. Volunteers, speakers, sponsors, partner projects/orgs and anyone who has ever participated in FU activities is a FU community member. Why do I need to be a member, whatever that means, to associate myself with a community?
The purpose of FOSS United is to strengthen and grow the Indian FOSS community. FOSS is inherently diverse and political. Several organisations, projects, FOSS devs and communities may not feel aligned with the foundation. How and Why would FOSS United represent those who do not associate with it and yet are important parts of the FOSS ecosystem? It is not accurate or fair for FOSS United to claim to represent the broader FOSS community simply because there are so many others doing impactful work in the FOSS ecosystem in their own meaningful ways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't agree with the suggested change (GB will represent the broader FOSS United community). However, "Claiming to represent a lot of people" is how groups here in India seek to derive legitimacy. "We don't represent everyone" - while technically accurate, is not something anybody here says. Abandoning that part of the playbook is not a good thing for policy efforts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Representing the broader FOSS United community is fine IMO, but I'm not on board with
There are simply enough people in the FOSS community who do not associate with FU