Would the board normally face questions if someone left? Especially if they [edit: as in âthe person leavingâ] 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 wouldnât 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 itâs hard to imagine they wouldnât be far more likely to publicly explain their actions and face questions.
Iâm 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 makingâI 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 âworkingother thingsâ or ânot enough timeâ reasoning weak.
Sorry, edited my comment to clarify what I meant by being busy here. The idea isnât that people might not have time to respond to questions, itâs that the CEO of a fast growing startup deciding they donât have time to be on the board of a foundation isnât likely to generate questions.
Would the board normally face questions if someone left? Especially if they [edit: as in âthe person leavingâ] 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 wouldnât 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 itâs hard to imagine they wouldnât be far more likely to publicly explain their actions and face questions.
Iâm 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 makingâI 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 âworkingother thingsâ or ânot enough timeâ reasoning weak.
Sorry, edited my comment to clarify what I meant by being busy here. The idea isnât that people might not have time to respond to questions, itâs that the CEO of a fast growing startup deciding they donât have time to be on the board of a foundation isnât likely to generate questions.