There are many possible permutations of this idea: A. Grandfather in the organizations that currently have Elders as organizations with Seats on the Board of Directors of the Foundation, with those seats currently occupied by the specific elders, but with the possibility of the people being replaced by the organization holding the seat at the organizations discretion.
B. Grandfather in the current Elders as members of the Board of Directors of the Foundation, with any vacancies among that group occurring later to be filled by an election from among the community in accordance with a democratic process to be determined. C. Grandfather in the current Elders as members of the Board of Directors of the Foundation, with expansion and addition to the Board from among the Community as the Board's first agenda item for action at its first meeting. We could even combine the above (i.e., implement A+B, or A+C, or all three or some variant thereof). My 2 cents worth: Boards containing more than 4 or 5 slots rapidly become unwieldy and hard to actually execute anything, so proposal C is probably difficult to actually manage in reality. If option B is chosen, it will be important to have limits on consecutive time in office, both from professional development and new blood development POVs. For proposal A, there would need to be a way to change the organizations periodically. Perhaps a UN Security Council model, where there is a permanent membership that pays a minimum contribution for a seat, and a rotating membership from the community. Not as attractive a model overall, but if the goal is a viable funding source as well as a conservatorship, it might be the most honest and straightforward method. I guess so far we still see some differences of opinion on what the purpose of the proposed foundation is supposed to be. If it's supposed to act as a non-profit placeholder to allow some organizations to contribute money, that's one thing. If it's supposed to actively raise money, that's a different animal, and I don't see consensus on either. So, here's what I want: I would like to see no more than 5-7 board members, with limited time in a specific office. Repeat the job if you want to, but take a minimum of one term break between office terms. If grandfathering the current elders into those slots moves the process along, terrific, do it. Set the first set of terms to expire in a staggered manner so that you don't lose the whole board at once as a one time thing, then regular two or three year terms. Chair position elected from board members, but no more than 1 year in office, and may not repeat more than twice in 3 yr period. The TAC should accept proposals for major development, evaluate for technical merit and feasibility, and recommend to board on which ones to fund. TAC should be responsible for maintaining code tree, testing, standards and documentation committees and ensuring same are kept published and up to date. Membership in either can be by written nomination, with two written seconds. Balloting by email, cryptographically signed with PGP key or similar. Current chair of foundation responsible for establishing a method to perform voting and designating a group to conduct same. If evidence found of attempts to do vote packing or other attempts to subvert vote, the candidate would be ineligible for a minimum of 3 terms for the position attempted. Minutes of all meetings made public within 7 days of meeting, and public financial statements (probably required by non-profit law, but be proactive about it). I'd invest in that sort of organization. -- db
