I like the self-nomination requirement.

Would you happen to have thoughts on a nominee template for the workspace?

Thanks. We aren't planning to create one beyond the questions on the workspace. But suggest one if you like, and suggestions for additional questions are welcome.

I have a question that doesn't have to do with election process per se, so I asked it over here.

FYI:

I've asked Soren about using Zooleo to query potential board members

Great to see Ted and Norbert add their names to the Board Election Process.

I further look forward to their respective workspaces explaining their ability to contribute to the Transition Board mandate.

Is it just me, or is there a sort of general cynicism about this board?

Are people taking this seriously?

I don't think it is just you. Unfortunately, some of the nominees see to be a part of the cynical crowd.

Why would you think people aren't taking this summer project seriously?

It seems in very quick order people are populating specific discussion threads (some self nominating ... others being press-ganged), workspaces are developing that capture candidate thoughts.

I like the candidate mix that's emerging. Hopefully others will put their names forward.

• If you suspect someone is acting in bad faith, ... ask questions.
• If you're unclear about someones idea, plan, suggestion, ... ask questions.
• If you object or have a concern, ... speak out.

Encourage particpation.

Cheers!

David said:

Is it just me, or is there a sort of general cynicism about this board?

Are people taking this seriously?

[edited: to tidy flow a bit.]

I guess I got my impression from reading a couple of the candidate pages (Ted, Lars) and from the general confusion that seems to accompany all threads and workspaces that attempt to form some structure larger than a single thread or workspace.

I really value this community and I think even if we have partial success in migrating it or keeping it alive somehow that would be worth the effort.

I would like to be clear. Is the board's purpose to act as representatives of the whole community for however the transition(s) take place and whatever decisions need to be made? Or is the board charged with figuring out where we should transfer collectively and all the decisions around that? This makes a huge difference to me in considering whether to take up the responsibility of self-nominating.

Good questions, Jean. Our idea in using the board election process was to facilitate the former (represent the community making decisions for however the transition(s) take place).

To me, it seems the latter question of "where to all go collectively" might be a decision the board makes, but a collective migration is not pre-ordained as the necessary outcome.

What is the length of the terms to which Directors are elected?

Do all Directors end their terms simultaneously, or shall their terms be staggered?

Shall a Secretary be elected to this Board or is that position to be appointed by the Directors?

Good work, Charles.

Charles, this is a transition Board, so the terms to which the board members are elected will not last beyond the final date that omidyar.net content is hosted on the Web (Dec 31, 2007).

If the board chooses to nominate themselves to run any community not hosted at omidyar.net, that's a matter for them to decide.

Matters regarding selecting a Secretary, etc, are up to the board to decide.

The first matter of business, however, is for the elected board to choose a Chairperson.

The issues you're bringing up sound like good candidates to put on the Board Role workspace page.

Thomas,

does this also mean that the link from the omidyar.net home page will also expire on Dec 31, 2007?

I understand that omidyar.net cannot guarantee what links might exist in the more distant future (let alone "indefinitely") -- my question is more about whether something is considered "out of the question" or "highly unlikely" or "perhaps a possibility" or something like that.

Thanks!

:) nmw

Thank you, Thomas, that was helpful.

Without intending to be tedious...

1. Given the 12/31/07 termination date, aside from the obvious community stakeholders, to whom else does the Board owe its duties of loyalty and care during the transitional term?
2. Would you kindy upload a copy of the articles and bylaws that currently govern our community, that we might consider their retention and/or reform in light of (1...and all) above, and the further interests of the O-Net stakeholders? If they're already expressed through the TOS agreement and etc., please direct us to this imformation.

Thanks and regards,

CM

User Agreement (TOS)

Privacy Policy

I had a question over on the "meta-platform" discussion that was recommended to pose here:

"Quick process question: what should be the dynamic between sitting on the board and having a platform you want to offer?

I am curious, because in some ways this could be viewed as a conflict of interest, and in other ways it could be viewed as "a seat at the negotiating table."

thoughts?"

On the same discussion, Linda had suggested (I think!) that it should be fine for people to both sit on the board, and have a direct interest in the outcome, ie a "platform" to offer. In one instance she had offered Ted as an example, who runs (I think) aboutus.org and Mark (founder of <ned>) who doesn't have a platform but would be willing (I think) to try and build something.

My response was/is:

i think its a broad ethical question. regardless of any individual's capacity to influence the board decision (which simply is not known), the question is whether, with their own proposal on the table -- and the possible boon they'd receive (without even having a tested platform in some cases) by having O.net membership directed their way -- they'd be able to separate their own interest in the matter in making a qualitatively sound a) assessment of other options and b) recommendation.

Lars Hasselblad Torres said:

O.net membership directed their way

hmmm -- does the "law of 2 feet" provide a first approximation of an answer to this? In this globalized world, I think it is next to impossible to force anyone to do anything.

If people feel good (and I personally think that a big part of feeling good is feeling secure), then that should be a promising basis for collaborative development -- and many people view an "open" environment as especially secure (however: I, personally, am unable to judge this -- I am merely suggesting that it is a factor that many people pay attention to [indeed: some people think the opposite -- "closed" -- provides more security]).

Look forward to hearing what other people think about this (ironically, I think you, Lars, perhaps have more expertise about such issues than any other member I can think of -- how would you answer your own question? ;)

nmw asked:

hmmm -- does the "law of 2 feet" provide a first approximation of an answer to this? In this globalized world, I think it is next to impossible to force anyone to do anything.

In the virtual world, think of it as the "law of 2 eyeballs" ie what gets seen is the meme. in other words, if "the board" decides x then x gets the bulk of attention around here, and whatever support ON is able to provide.

Outside of that, other smaller efforts will persist, though not on a level playing field of "attention."

So "force" isn't such an apt word; I tend toward "coerce" or "influence." In this globalized world, influence is the deal-maker.

Lars Hasselblad Torres said:

In this globalized world, influence is the deal-maker.

That's why I think it's great that schools "teach" people how to use language and technology. Those are the building blocks with which Tom Paine's ("Commen Sense") statement that "Law is King" changed the world.

Are you saying, "the law of two feet" rules? what role do you think the board can play to support this? perhaps the board should be limited to only those with a platform to propose - that might ensure each option received the greatest possible share of network visibility :D

personally, i do not wish to be in a spot where I have to join 5 more "platforms" to follow the work of 5 very different individuals...

Lars Hasselblad Torres said:

Are you saying, "the law of two feet" rules? what role do you think the board can play to support this? perhaps the board should be limited to only those with a platform to propose - that might ensure each option received the greatest possible share of network visibility :D

personally, i do not wish to be in a spot where I have to join 5 more "platforms" to follow the work of 5 very different individuals...

Yes and No.

Yes: I believe "Die Gedanken Sind Frei"

No: I do not believe a juggling many communities would be either as easy or as fruitful as the collaborative development of one community

See also how Ray and Jay are doing stupendous things (however, I do not think that the things they are doing are the same as the "make good things happenings" which the omidyar.net community is trying to move forward).

I also noted Moses' very insightful remarks --

Moses kariuki said in "The end of omidyar.net: creating new communities" on Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:37:54 PDT:

I have just logged in and …am disappointed to find that the end of Omidyar Network has been announced. This is something that will take time to sink in my mind. I never anticipated such a thing could happen. I believe the thought of closing this online community was not an abrupt decision but there were reasons that justify this.

When I stumbled on Onet in 22nd January 2005 I have never wished to leave the site. It was the only online community that I saw the Feedback system. Every time I got a feedback the more I wanted to stay. I introduced many of my friends and the site was now becoming my online home. There is no other site that I have spent more time that Onet.

It’s through Onet that I was able to connect with the most wonderful people that I have met online. Some of them are still here while others have since left.

It’s through Onet effort and supports that Vigil for Darfur were held in Nairobi and in other cities across the world.

The work that I have been doing in Sudan since I left campus in 2005 up to today has been fully supported by ON and Onet.

Uganda Conference; where I was able to meet other Onetters was made possible through this space. Those are only few good things that have happened here.

Onet might be gone but the lessons and people that I met here will be forever in my thoughts.

To the next step of Transition