Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible
This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. This is the modern world, there are no kings any more. Different institutions are responsible for different aspects of the whole ball of wax. In corp. governance, and hence in the ASF the responsibility of boards is _very_ circumscribed.
Don't look to the board as some kind of overriding lever on the foundation's control board. It's not the master tiller of the ASF boat. Each PMC is it's own boat in the water. The board's only function is to fufill legally required oversight that assures we do not go so far off course as to run aground on some illegal activity or some sand bar outside our charter/principles/mission. Those obstacles to navigation circumscribe the perimeter of a very big sea. All activity within that pond is your responsibility.
The board exists only because we have to have a governing structure that matched the expectation of the law. All boards are responsible only for oversight. They are like an auditor. They are not responsible for execution. The law intentionally partitions responsibly for execution from the oversight responsibility. The case law is clear that if execution and board functions merge then that is bad. The case law is also clear that as long as boards do the oversight all manner of lousy inane bizarre execution can take place and they aren't liable.
I am not a lawyer. So all this should be taken with a grain of salt. But, when I was on the board I did take the time to read a few books on what my responsibilities were. Bear in mind - particularly when the board is being a pest about PMC status reports - that the board is personally liable for failing to do the oversight job.
In the ASF the PMC play the role of managers. The PMC are ultimately responsible. The board sees to it that the PMC keep the board notified of their activities. They do this so that they can fulfill their responsibility for to assure that the PMC are in fact fulfilling the ASF's charter.
Now if you want the board to change the shape of the pond? For example if you wanted to force an ASF wide policy about committer/member ratio on projects say. You could advocate to them for that. You could, via the members, elect board members who would work to shape the pond to your desires.
But these are, intentionally, blunt and difficult to weld ways to change how things are going. The way the ASF encourages is to work directly, with a bias for action, thru the projects.
Any attempt to appeal to the authority of the board for more than that is likely to lead to nothing but frustration for the petitioners. It is the job of the PMC to manage their own house. If you wish to appeal to some authority, as versus take the bull by the horns directly, then one or another PMC is the place to look. If your not satisfied with the outcome then you need to look to how your PMC is elected or structured.
We have worked hard to assure that we don't get drawn into the trap of having some sort of elite who's authority trumps all others. I doubt that encouraging the board to become that elite is a good idea. I doubt they are likely to take the job - no matter how often people offer it to them. Feel free to call them on it if you notice them trending in that direction.
This is by design: Don't go looking for da man. He is nowhere. He is you!
- ben
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
