Would the board normally face questions if someone left? Especially if they [edit: as in āthe person leavingā] clearly had other big things they were working on?
@Jeff Kaufman technically you might be right that even if board members were voted in and were responsible to members, they wouldnāt have to disclose their information of explain their actions.
But if you are voted in and therefore formally accountable to members, you are likely to both feel obligated to explain things like this, and also be motivated to explain important goings on to keep your support to ensure you have a mandate in the community to stay on the board.
Whether we agree or disagree with boards being more democratic (a different question) assuming a board is voted in itās hard to imagine they wouldnāt be far more likely to publicly explain their actions and face questions.
Iām also often confused by this common argument I see on the EA forums that people might not have time, or might consider other things more important than responding to critical governance issues or decision makingāI remember this argument touted on the open phil thread. It seems a convenient excuse for not publicly responding to issues, which seems like a key function of any management body. There may be other good legal or confidentiality reasons not to respond, but I find the āworkingother thingsā or ānot enough timeā reasoning weak.
Sorry, edited my comment to clarify what I meant by being busy here. The idea isnāt that people might not have time to respond to questions, itās that the CEO of a fast growing startup deciding they donāt have time to be on the board of a foundation isnāt likely to generate questions.
Would the board normally face questions if someone left? Especially if they [edit: as in āthe person leavingā] clearly had other big things they were working on?
@Jeff Kaufman technically you might be right that even if board members were voted in and were responsible to members, they wouldnāt have to disclose their information of explain their actions.
But if you are voted in and therefore formally accountable to members, you are likely to both feel obligated to explain things like this, and also be motivated to explain important goings on to keep your support to ensure you have a mandate in the community to stay on the board.
Whether we agree or disagree with boards being more democratic (a different question) assuming a board is voted in itās hard to imagine they wouldnāt be far more likely to publicly explain their actions and face questions.
Iām also often confused by this common argument I see on the EA forums that people might not have time, or might consider other things more important than responding to critical governance issues or decision makingāI remember this argument touted on the open phil thread. It seems a convenient excuse for not publicly responding to issues, which seems like a key function of any management body. There may be other good legal or confidentiality reasons not to respond, but I find the āworkingother thingsā or ānot enough timeā reasoning weak.
Sorry, edited my comment to clarify what I meant by being busy here. The idea isnāt that people might not have time to respond to questions, itās that the CEO of a fast growing startup deciding they donāt have time to be on the board of a foundation isnāt likely to generate questions.