[IAEP] Executive Director- some benefits and risks

[Jim Gettys]

In Gnome, we found it *very* awkward to have an executive director who
is also a BOD member.

Don't make this mistake, by making it impossible up front.
                        - Jim


On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:34 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
-- 
Jim Gettys <jg at laptop.org>
One Laptop Per Child