Member/Board Interactivity

[Egbert Eich]

Matthew Rubenstein writes:
 > 	One response (from B Massey) to this member/board interactivity
 > question included making board committees to target specific areas of
 > concern, and subcommittees to solve specific problems in those areas.
 > That might be too exclusive a hierarchy, or it might be structured
 > enough to actually finish tasks of solving problems - the reason that
 > structure is so popular in governance. But it does present a system for
 > plugging the membership into the board, integrating decisions with both
 > issues and execution. Maybe just a set of committees, each started as an
 > issue is decided important enough by the board, with mixed board/member
 > membership.
 > 
 > 	Would you set up a sub/committee system with mixed board/member
 > membership, or an alternative? Or would you have the board do a
 > different planning process to decide how to structure for this
 > interaction?
 > 
--text follows this line--
Sure. The idea is not really new.
A lot of the decisions that have been done by the 
board should be done on a broader basis.
I think I brought this up on the bylaw@ discussion list.

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between
comittees and working groups.
Commitees are more involved with formal activeties and
obligations of the Foundation while working groups are
about getting certain (more or less) technical work done.

Cheers,
	Egbert.