geni wrote:
2008/9/10 Ross Gardler
<ross.gardler(a)oucs.ox.ac.uk>uk>:
As far as I can see, the community has no ability
to remove that power
since there are no bye laws in place at the time of the election.
Again, let me stress, I'm not saying that anyone is going to abuse that
power, I'm merely saying they could. This concerns me as I know of a
number of communities who have imploded completely as there was no way
to remove a rogue element of the board.
It is much safer, IMHO, to put a mechanism in place *prior* to the
election for the removal of a rogue element of the board. One that has a
very public history is Mambo/Joomla.
There is no legal way to enforce this.
True. This is another case (like histories of decisions) where having
documented evidence of the intent can smooth a bumpy road. However, it
won't necessarily solve the problem.
Providing such
safeguards could save a great deal of pain in the future
for a small amount of effort now (of course it is unlikely to be needed,
it's a bit like deciding how much insurance to pay for).
I'd suggest that something simple will do for the interim board, say 75%
of voting members and/or a majority of board members. Or perhaps there
is a model you can adopt from one of the other successful chapters.
Ross
The fall back is that the foundation makes it clear it will not give
the current board the permission to use the trademarks then we start
again.
Do you mean the foundation has the right to withdraw its support if it
feels the board is dysfunctional? I guess this is the kind of thing
could already be in place.
If so I can see it working well. It is the stick with which the
community can beat the board and is, in reality, more effective than a
policy for removal.
Thanks
Ross