Hi COr,
Cor Nouws wrote on 2010-12-03 17.07:
- Is it on purpose that no Officer may be in the board?
It would better be avoided to have a situation where one (officer) is
his/her own employer (member BoD)
sure, I see that issue. However, I would take a different approach: Let
a director also be a member of the BoD (and the 30% rule of
members-per-employer kick in), but generally avoid decisions where
people decide on their own doings, salaries and the like - that is
definitely a conflict of interest and might be even not allowed by law.
For the example above, where we have a good developer where it makes
sense having him in the board and as officer, we can do so, don't lose
his great contributions, but also avoid a conflict of interest.
I clearly see the issues, but on the other hand I want to avoid we lose
good people in the foundation's bodies just because of a "something bad
might happen" clause. If we have good people, let them engage themselves.
Sure, you don't need to be a member of any board or have any role to
engage yourselfe, but when it comes to certain things, board membership
makes things much easier. Taking the developer example: A good developer
with good oversight might be very helpful in shaping the board's strategy.
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <[email protected]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
