🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1402@DELTA.clcs.com.au> sp@clcs.com.au (Stephen Prince) writes:

>Speaking as an ex-comittee member, the term was definitely too short to
>achieve anything really productive. I used to be an avid reader of the
>minutes, but that didn't prepare me for the void I was about to encounter.

I'm inclined to agree.  One year is too little time to achieve anything.
A better scenario would be to only change half the committee every year.
So people have two year terms but they are staggered.

>... Some OS
>groups will only fill these positions from current general committee
>members, and some take it one step further saying the people had to be
>on the general committee for a number of years prior. ...

Positions like "President-Elect" (as the person elected to be the next
president) and "Immediate Past President" (as the person who was most
recently president) are other ways some OS groups deal with this.  Some
organisations have both those and a President!  But they also have a
committee of about 20 people, I don't think we are ready for that yet.

I'm not real keen on the President-Elect model, it doesn't seem very
responsive to change.  However I think having the immediate past
president as an ex officio member of the committee is valuable.  It
provides continuity in the event of a complete change-over of the
committee (important in an organisation with none or very few staff).

Combining the above options would give us a President for two years,
plus the President had to stick around for an extra year (ex officio),
making three years on the committee.  That's a heck of a commitment,
but it would give continuity.

Peter