On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:24 AM, James Brown<[email protected]> wrote: > I agree. I think that the best course is to let the electorate decide in > each election. > > I'd add that I do not see any real alternative.
Sure you see an alternative. You go on to describe it below. ;-) > If we set a limit on the > number of board seats that people who work for the same company can hold, do > we either: > a. Prevent more than one person from any company from standing together (or > standing if there is a current board member not up for reelection) > b. Wait till the votes are in and then, if we have more than one elected > person from the same company force one to stand down? > > And, as just occured to me... What if a board member goes to work, after > they are elected, for the same company as another board member? Do they > stand down? Jim I think that you have pointed out exactly the three guidelines for Foundation nominees and board members. > This really feels to me like something that should just be left to the > desires of the community as expressed in the elections. Some things are dealt with more effectively from the foundation point of view, then presented to the membership and community at large. All starting with perhaps a single comment by a single community member. I think the ODbL discussions followed that form. Some have suggested that it is too difficult to put such protections in place. But we are mapping the world, one post box at a time. We are really good at "difficult". >From the Foundation side, the benefit of diverse board members is obvious: Breadth of experience, knowledge, contacts and industries make for a very well informed board. Any board will find solutions that benefit the Foundation and community. Those solutions will also be beneficial to the outside interests of the board members involved (otherwise they would excuse themselves as conflicted). I maintain that any given solution or initiative recommended by the board that considers a great number of diverse interests is better that one that considers fewer interests. Having different companies on the board is better. I have to imagine that the benefits of one-person-per-company are worthwhile from the company perspective as well: The time committed to the Board is time taken away from the board member's job at the company. And the time commitment can be substantial. The board minutes[1] record several cases where board members had to leave meetings early or show up late due to other business obligations. Why would a single business require more than one member, and commit double, treble or more resources to the board? Surely a single board member is capable of representing the company concerns, interests and opportunities for collaboration. What is it from the company point of view that appeals about having more than one member on a board and that is worth the additional committed resources? > Jim Brown -CTO CloudMade Best regards, Richard [1] http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/board-meeting-minutes/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
