open politics foundation board of directors

The open politics foundation board of directors, like any board of directors, is responsible for governance and scrutiny on all external relationships that affect perception of the open politics foundation.

Its decisions should respect a unanimity minus one or at worst a unanimity minus two threshold of decisions (ideally 80% of board votes are required to decide). As no one of poor judgement at all sits on the board, full dissensus reports for any contested decisions should be required. Major unanimous decisions should simply be tabled to be re-considered at a fixed future time - such unanimity almost always reflects fear or lack of exploration of more optimal but controversial alternatives - groupthink. The dividing line between major and minor decisions is the main structural decision in incorporating the open politics foundation. Minor decisions, presumably, are those that never reach board ears, and don't have to, because they are easily changed if they become problematic.

Three other differences with the existing LP steering committee are proposed:
  • no one paid on more than a half-time basis by the open politics foundation should sit on the board
  • no one sitting on the open politics board of advisors - devoted to technical and highly constrained decisions - should simultaneously sit on the board of directors, to avoid confusing the relationships and to permit a clean interface between the two groups
  • donor and client representatives should sit on the board of directors and be permitted, within limits, to proxy their votes

These differences are proposed as agenda items for the LP steering meeting 2005-05-19 which will approve most of the structure in principle.