If you haven’t read the proposed changes yet you should do that first and form your own opinion before reading mine. Thoughts here are high level, not a line by line analysis.
The most important change is the dilution of elected Directors. We’re decreasing that from 6 to 4 while increasing the appointed members by 2 (the 2 vendor seats). Here’s what it could look like:
- 4 Elected (by the members)
- 4 Vendors (MS + unknown, and they pick who fills the seats)
- 5 Appointed
- 4 Officers (elected at one point, but now appointed by the Board and do not stand for election by the members)
That’s a little concerning. If we (the voters) don’t like the direction, it makes it harder to drive change. I’d feel a lot better about PASS governance as a whole if the officers stood for re-election. Or said differently, if the bylaws required a majority of Directors to be elected by the members.
On the topic of vendor seats, things to think about:
- Which vendor? (Surely that has already been discussed)
- How does that vendor get picked? Influence? Amount of sponsorship?
- How do all the other vendors react?
- How will that vendor help PASS and its members?
Go read the changes. Think about why. Think about how it would help and how it could go wrong. Think about what we could do to get more people ready and interested in running for the Board while you’re reading.
