Hi all. For IFSO to be an organisation, it needs a committee, so I'm going to propose one.
The point of forming an organisation is to add some coordination to our work, and to add weight to lobbying and advocacy that we do. We have to encourage the use of Free Software in governments, schools, businesses, etc. And we have to defend Free Software from legal threats such as software patents, and from media misrepresentation etc. This is too much work for a committee.
What we really need is an active memberbase with a committee somewhere on the sideline to manage the website, organise meetings etc. Unlike the average org, the IFSO committee will be assistants to the contributors, not vice versa.
So we need a few people that won't screw the members, have an acceptable level of Free Software knowledge, seem to be able to get work done, and seem to have time to get work done.
So my proposal for the committee is: Me Malcolm Tyrrell Aidan Delaney
None of us knew eachother a year ago, but in the last few months these people have shown reasonable initiative, and ability to get work done.
Others have also been getting work done, but I hope this is an acceptable committee, that will allow us to form an org and get back to working on Free Software.
I've asked Malcolm and Aidan, and they're willing to be on the committee. After year 1 we'll have democratic elections, and the committee will probably be increased to 5 people, but for the first year, is this proposed committee acceptable?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ciaran O'Riordan writes:
I've asked Malcolm and Aidan, and they're willing to be on the committee. After year 1 we'll have democratic elections, and the committee will probably be increased to 5 people, but for the first year, is this proposed committee acceptable?
sounds good to me!
(for what that's worth, seeing as I'm not even *in* Ireland at the moment ;)
- --j.
On , November 19, 2003 at 18:10 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Hi all. For IFSO to be an organisation, it needs a committee, so I'm going to propose one.
[...]
So my proposal for the committee is: Me Malcolm Tyrrell Aidan Delaney
I'd second these people to be on the committee.
However, I'd prefer it if the committee was a little larger. I personally think a 5 or even 6 person committee would be in a better position to guide IFSO through the first year, where we should expect substantial growth and attendant workload for everyone running the organisation. Many hands make light work, and so on.
As long as everyone on the committee is committed (heh) to the goals of IFSO I don't think keeping it very small is beneficial.
I'll volunteer to do some of that work on the committee - I have experience with looking after the administrivia of our research group here in TCD, and with organising meetings and conferences - and I'm sure there are at least one or two more people on the list who would also be willing to stand up. Anyone?
my mail about patenting numbers was a mis-post that was meant for discussion@, not fsfe-ie@. Anyway, about this committee...
The most important thing for me is to have the least possible seperation between committee and members. By having just 3 people, the committee and members will have to work together, committee-only discussion would be pretty pointless, and we get an open organisation.
That's my main hope, but the other hope is to spend more time working on FS than on debating details.
And that includes this debate, so list: a: go with the three? Or go to b: 5 or c: 6? (If b or c, please list names so we can get this done quickly)
If consensus forms on a committee, we'll go with it. I'm not married to the number three, it's just my preference.
Glenn Strong Glenn.Strong@cs.tcd.ie writes:
However, I'd prefer it if the committee was a little larger. I personally think a 5 or even 6 person committee would be in a better position to guide IFSO through the first year, where we should expect substantial growth and attendant workload for everyone running the organisation. Many hands make light work, and so on.
I'll volunteer to do some of that work on the committee - I have experience with looking after the administrivia of our research group here in TCD, and with organising meetings and conferences - and I'm sure there are at least one or two more people on the list who would also be willing to stand up. Anyone?
Speaking from experience of organisations and committees in my student days:
Make sure it's (A) an odd number (less likely to deadlock) and (B) <= 7 (next to impossible to get anything done fast with more executive members)
3 elected "senior" executive committee members (president/chairperson, executive secretary and treasurer) and 2 elected "junior" executive committee members (e.g. tech sec. and social sec., or whatever floats your boat, pick subject-matter-specific titles...) probably works out best, at least for a small to middling organisation. You can invent more elected or appointed junior secretaries if it becomes necessary, and perhaps do without them for the first while (but appoint/elect them A.S.A.P.)
Such a scheme can give continuity in a 2-4 year period, and may be a good idea if you're planning to draw heavily transient populations (student and/or professional, people tend not to stick around forever), as the juniors can prove their commitment and consider runing for election to the senior posts. It is typical to have a rule that the 3 senior exec positions should be filled by people who have already been involved for a year except in exceptional circumstances.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
By having just 3 people, the committee and members will have to work together, committee-only discussion would be pretty pointless, and we get an open organisation.
Like you, I see the committee mainly to have a sheparding role. The real work will hopefully be done by the members. However, I think a committee of three still sounds a little small.
David Golden wrote:
(A) an odd number (less likely to deadlock)
I agree. So how about 5 then?
Glenn has put himself forward. Anyone else with the time and commitment?
Malcohol.
Malcolm Tyrrell malcohol@eircom.net writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
By having just 3 people...
...So how about 5 then?
Glenn has put himself forward. Anyone else with the time and commitment?
okay, I'd still much prefer 3, but I also prefer to get a decision and move on. So how about a committee of 4, adding Glenn.
committee of 4: me malcolm aidan glenn
The charter says that in case of deadlock, the chairman gets a second vote, so odd/even isn't an issue. (also, I don't see what big contraversial decisions would lead to deadlock.)
Can we agree on this?
(I've been holding off an email about working on the EUCD because I didn't want to get in the way of this thread, but I'll post it tonight and anyone responding should also indicate a yes/no to the 4 person suggestion at the end of their mail)
(I also still haven't posted the summary of the last meeting, I'll try do this tonight)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 25 Nov 2003 at 12:52, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
Like you, I see the committee mainly to have a sheparding role. The real work will hopefully be done by the members. However, I think a committee of three still sounds a little small.
I would be extremely surprised if the membership ever did anything regularly. Almost all committee-based organisations I've ever seen are run almost entirely by members of the committee - they certainly have to do all the grunt work anyway.
Cheers, Niall
"Niall Douglas" s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com writes:
I would be extremely surprised if the membership ever did anything regularly. Almost all committee-based organisations I've ever seen are run almost entirely by members of the committee - they certainly have to do all the grunt work anyway.
I think anyone of real use, will help regardless of committee positions etc.
Without holding any related committee positions:
You yourself mailed MEPs regarding software patents Malcolm Tyrrell mailed MEPs, and did letter stuffing work Ben North has worked on Irelands implementation of the EUCD Adam Moran and Adam Beecher did mass faxing of a letter to MEPs Glenn Strong has put together a charter for IFSO I've researched, drafted letters, and given talks Mel McWeeney is looking into voting processes. Teresa Hackett is working on the "IPR enforcement directive" (not a member of fsfe-ie, but more on her later)
(apologies to anyone I've left out, this isn't a definitive "thank you" list, it's just off the top of my head with a quick look at the archives) (Plus numerous people have given useful comments etc.)
So we either make a committee of 9, or we push the committee aside as a technicality and continue the good work.
Unless you are referring to the possibility that a commitee could ruin this current widespread contribution. Yes this could be a problem, but again I see the solution is to push the committee aside.
Sorry to butt in, but since my name was mentioned...
I think the committee should consist of half a dozen members. I distinctly remember seeing a discussion on the subject that reckoned committees/boards that were too small or too large are ineffective. Too-small groups will be homogeneous and under-representative. Too-large groups will be heterogeneous and spend their time bickering. The recommended size was somewhere between six and twelve. Unfortunately, I can't point to a reference.
No, I'm not volunteering. I believe I've already offered to help with media relations, however me and committees don't get on. For a start, the first thing I'd do is table a motion to make the organisation more representative of open source. :)
adam
-----Original Message----- From: fsfe-ie-bounces@fsfeurope.org [mailto:fsfe-ie-bounces@fsfeurope.org]On Behalf Of Ciaran O'Riordan Sent: 26 November 2003 03:10 To: fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] a committee for IFSO
"Niall Douglas" s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com writes:
I would be extremely surprised if the membership ever did anything regularly. Almost all committee-based organisations I've ever seen are run almost entirely by members of the committee - they certainly have to do all the grunt work anyway.
I think anyone of real use, will help regardless of committee positions etc.
Without holding any related committee positions:
You yourself mailed MEPs regarding software patents Malcolm Tyrrell mailed MEPs, and did letter stuffing work Ben North has worked on Irelands implementation of the EUCD Adam Moran and Adam Beecher did mass faxing of a letter to MEPs Glenn Strong has put together a charter for IFSO I've researched, drafted letters, and given talks Mel McWeeney is looking into voting processes. Teresa Hackett is working on the "IPR enforcement directive" (not a member of fsfe-ie, but more on her later)
(apologies to anyone I've left out, this isn't a definitive "thank you" list, it's just off the top of my head with a quick look at the archives) (Plus numerous people have given useful comments etc.)
So we either make a committee of 9, or we push the committee aside as a technicality and continue the good work.
Unless you are referring to the possibility that a commitee could ruin this current widespread contribution. Yes this could be a problem, but again I see the solution is to push the committee aside.
-- Ciaran O'Riordan - http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ _______________________________________________ Fsfe-ie mailing list Fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003 at 09:07 -0000, adam beecher wrote:
I think the committee should consist of half a dozen members.
[...]
No, I'm not volunteering. I believe I've already offered to help with media relations, however me and committees don't get on. For a start, the first thing I'd do is table a motion to make the organisation more representative of open source. :)
There seems to be both a general opinion that the committee should be around 5 or 6, but a shortage of volunteers to get to that size. One way to break that deadlock is: form the committee now with the people available as an initial committee, and entrust them to recruit {2,3,whatever} additional people as they present themselves. I regard this as sub-optimal, but it may be the best option available to us at this time.
Glenn Strong Glenn.Strong@cs.tcd.ie writes:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003 at 09:07 -0000, adam beecher wrote:
There seems to be both a general opinion that the committee should be around 5 or 6, but a shortage of volunteers to get to that size.
One way to break that deadlock is: form the committee now with the people available as an initial committee, and entrust them to recruit {2,3,whatever}...
I'm still in favour of 3. As you said, more people suggest 5 or 6, but only 4 have stepped up. So how about we go with 4, and increase to 5 or 6 at the first annual elections.
whatever size we go with, I'd like to see this issue burried. We'll have democratic elections after 12 months, the committee should indeed be increase to 5 or 6 then, but until then I'd prefer this issue didn't have to surface again. It's been a distraction already, and 12 months isn't such a long time anyway.
The four being: me malcolm aidan glenn
This is no ones first choice, but is it good enough so that we can sign off on it and move on?