[IAEP] Executive Director- some benefits and risks

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

The goal is to have the benefits of the Executive Director while also 
mitigating risk.  Comments inline.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, David Farning wrote:

> Executive Director
>
> The decision to have an Executive Director boils down to one question,
> 'Do the benefits of having a single point of control outweigh the risks
> of a single point of control?'
>
> Benefits
>
> 1.  Fund raising.  The single largest advantage of an Executive Director 
> is their ability to raise money.  This stems from the fact that people 
> and companies that are in a position to donate money are more 
> comfortable dealing with an individual than a group.
>
> 2.  Public relations.  The Executive Director can be the voice of the 
> organization.  He can become the canonical source of information about 
> the foundation.
>
> 3. The buck stops here.  The Executive Director's job is to execute the 
> vision of the board.  As a result, he is in a position to make the hard 
> decisions.
>
> Risks
>
> 1.  Philosophical.  In the world of free and open source software,
> individual contributors can be philosophically opposed to the
> centralized control granted to the Executive Director.

It depends upon how this "control" is exercised.  We should make it 
crystal clear that the ED defers the vast majority of decisions to the 
board, and acts counter to the board only when absolutely necessary.

Also, the fact that the board has the ability to remove the ED by a (1/2 
or 2/3) vote mitigates these risks a great deal.

> 2.  Losing control.  For an open source project to be successful, there
> must be a balance of power between the members (owners), the board
> (directors), and the Executive Director (manager).  It is possible for
> strong Executive Directors to run roughshod over inexperienced, part
> time board members.

It is also possible for strong board members to run roughshod over weak 
board members.  It is also possible for a strong board to run roughshod 
over the ED.

In my experience, the ED is a "first among equals," to whom the board 
agrees to defer because of his/her experience, leadership, etc., etc. 
The fact is, if decisions at the Board/ED level aren't essentially 
consensus-based, we've got big problems anyway.  In Fedora, if something 
goes to a vote, it's usually because we've failed to address the issue 
properly.

> 3.  Herding cats.  There can be significant tensions between a manager
> who is responsible for executing the vision of the board and volunteer
> contributors.

This is true regardless of governance structure, I think.

--g