...
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 min | Housekeeping |
| |
| 60 min | Outstanding discussion points |
| |
| 20 min | Timeline and Community Review |
|
Notes
Time for components council and Mark B doing a fund-riaising update
Mark B: Steering sent out a note about a 3 year ask - 1 year for this year, maybe 3 years after the new Governance model is in place.
Discussion Points about drafted governance model
R: Warming up to the big stuff - added a dissent section so that if someone really doesn't like something, have a space for marking that so we're transparent - and we can be anonymous
Steering - looking at length of term. Adding in Jess Hilt to review and how we look at how we bring people into new roles. Her input in this process may be useful.
Mic does a lot of this, too - we may already be in agreement
Pros - 3 years better longterm knowledge, Cons - will lose people
Evviva: 5 year terms - extended period of time for institutional knowledge to be passed down and internalized. 5 years is a long time, reduced to 3. Community manager ends up being institutional memory. 3 years is the minimum amount of time so we can roll people onto chair/ vice-chair rotation. May be not tied to institution. Probably don't need to run special elections every year.
Mic - I prefer 3 year terms - provides continuity. Want new people, elections every 3 years. Give all of those people enough time, workflows, needs of community. 1/3rd of board every year, rotate every 3 years.
Maria - we have nine, 3 new every year
Mark - there can be more structure - pitched additional roles in community what a promotional and sustainable model looks like in community and not just among steering.