On 6/25/18 6:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote on 6/22/18 8:25 PM:
I'm curious, why are these two considered Executive officers, and
people like Sally and Gavin are not?
Does it matter?
-1 to any definition that is random and capricious. :-)
It should be consistent. I can't conceive of any definition that
includes Daniel Ruggeri that does not include Sally.
Craig's own definition included Chris, but he didn't add Chris.
Perhaps someone can propose a definition that we can use? I only
suggested my definition as it was consistent with how the agenda has
been produced since before I was secretary.
Just be aware that if a person is listed as an executive officer, that
name will be a part of the monthly roll call UNLESS that person takes
an explicit action.
It seems we have two concepts that we are trying to merge here:
1. Who we expect to attend every board meeting (or more precisely
whose absence less likely than their presence)
2. Who is an "executive officer."
I can't see a clear rationale for designating those now in category
1. as any kind of natural group other than that they are the ones
specifically named in section 5.2 the bylaws. The bylaws allow the
board to create more, which we have done over the years. Some, but
not all officers who report directly to the board are there and some
who do not report directly to the board are there.
I think its best, honestly, to dispense with the "executive" notion
altogether, but keep 1. working as designed. So we s/Executive
Officers / Guests to either
Officers Expected to Attend
Other Officers and Guests
or move to three categories:
Officers Expected
Other Officers
Guests
Could be I have the wrong labels, but the more I think about it, the
more I think there is no rationale for calling some officers
"executive" and other ones not (other than separating out the
project PMC Chairs, but that is not needed here).
Phil
- Sam Ruby
