[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Proposed Responses to questions on Draft Bylaws

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:34:14PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> SO: The way I understand it is that the EC powers is applicable on board
> action or inaction hence is not restricted in the manner you've described
> above.

The proposed text I saw appeared to me to say that the EC would
effectively be required to rubber-stamp the decision.  Maybe I
misunderstood it; if so, good.  (The reason for the rubber stamp is
that the EC is actually required to make such an affirmation.)

> I think we all should agree first that board should indeed be able
> to remove their colleague if they do wish and if the requirements meet.

Well, yes and no.  The point I'm trying to make is that this agreement
could represent an attack against an approach to additional
accountability short of the full replacement of the Board.  Let me try
to lay it out in more detail.

Suppose the community were to decide that the Board was insufficiently
sensitive to $issue, and were to appoint someone to the Board who was
more sensitive to it.  It is not too hard to imagine a case in which
such a member would be regarded by the rest of the Board as too
disruptive and so on.  So, they remove the member.  The Empowered
Community permits the removal.  The community (whichever way the
member is appointed) re-appoints, the Board removes again, and so on.

This could be short-circuited by simply making the required Empowered
Community action to be a real one, so that if the EC doesn't agree
with the Board's decision it can say, "No."

I don't feel super strongly about this -- you could get the same
result another way (like by making it plain that's what's going to
happen -- I don't believe anyone likes that many trips to the dentist
-- or by just removing the Board).  But since the EC is required to
act anyway, it seems one might as well use that occasion to allow the
power to be used effectively.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com