[Theforum] Restructure (modified)

martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com
Wed May 15 08:14:21 CDT 2002

Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------

I think an explicit vote on this would be useful... adding mine to those
already made:

>It has been proposed that evolt.org's volunteers are restructured into the
>following groups:



>And with a parent group (SC - Steering Committee) made up of 2 members of
>each subgroup.


>Each group shall decide how to elect their two representatives (+1 voting,
>voting application, whatever). Said reps should be encouraged to cycle at
>predefined period to be decided by each group individually.

+1, although the emphasis is more on the groups to cycle their reps

>Volunteers should serve within a maximum of three groups so as to maximise
>their effectiveness.

+1, and to allow the maximum number of evolters to play a part

>They cannot serve as a rep for more than one group


>nor serve on the SC for more than 6 continuous months as a
>representative of the same group. This will be a requirement that applies
>each group.

+1, although it would be useful to have some ex-officio people on the SC
for longer - treasurer for one.

>Reps who find that non-evolt.org responsibilities lessen their available
>time should be encouraged to pass on their representation

+1 - they pass their representation back to the group (they are the
representatives of the group and derive their authority from that source)

>It should not be seen as anything other than
>"giving someone else a chance".

...and to ensure that their group receives effective representation. But
you're right, not as a criticism of that individual

>representative, taking the opportunity to pass on the position, should
>for a re-vote/election, and not simply pass the role onto a person of

A representative does not own the role by right of anything but the
nomination of their group - it is simply not theirs to pass on. It gets
passed back to the group who then decide who is best to hold it.

>Also, as a general guideline, rights and responsibilities (where relevant
>Content, Admin, Development specifically) should be based (as currently)
>ability and trust/reputation within the community. Exact requirements
>barriers) will be decided by each group.

+1, but the barriers should be subject to review and open to rejection by
the SC (in case one group starts getting overly creative).

I would also suggest that significant appointments (ie "roles whose
responsibilities could break the organisation") are subject to validation
by the SC (treasurer certainly, root access to the boxes probably, anyone
with the capability to transfer the domain name ownership too).

--------------------- End of message text --------------------

This e-mail is sent by the above named in their
individual, non-business capacity and is not on
behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming
e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and
telecommunications systems.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any

More information about the theforum mailing list