Hi ComDev! A couple days ago, I wrote a message to somebody describing some of the process that the Board uses for its meetings. I thought this may be a helpful start for you guys to write about "How the Board Works".
I've snipped/summarized commentary from the other person, but left in my text in full (minus a couple snipped references). I hope this helps! Cheers, -g ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [snip: noting that board@ is a "fire hose" of mail leading up to Board meetings] The authoritative document is the agenda in Subversion. For years now, I don't actually track the mailing list, but just peruse the agenda a day or two before the meeting. Thus the "fire hose" is not something that bothers me. Those emails *are* there, however, for the people who subscribe to board@ but may not want to review the agenda. They can pick/choose reports as they come in. Many other people watch for comments the Directors make in the agenda (in Subversion) and will respond to those comments (in the agenda, or on the mailing list). This is one reason we ask the VPs to put [REPORT} in the subject line: I know they are redundant with the agenda, and can "safely" be ignored. I just look for people responding to them, or for other email threads to start. [snip: other boards' process] Yes. This would be equivalent to reviewing the agenda file in Subversion a few days in advance. In fact, we tell all PMCs to get their reports in 48 hours before the meeting for *precisely* this review aspect. [snip: report submission process] In our case, you forward it to board@ [...]. If you have Subversion access, then you'd also copy it into the agenda. If you do not, then another Director will eventually see that and copy it into the agenda. [snip: reviewing agenda to prepare comments] Yup. And we put the comments *into* the agenda (clearly delineated; [...]). That way, all the Directors can see/respond to them *before* the meeting, rather than worry about needing to keep personal notes during the meeting and raising them at the appropriate time (and, thus, giving no prep time for other Directors about the comments that will be raised). [snip: minutes at next meeting] We sometimes don't get the minutes in time for the *next* meeting (we are volunteers), but they pretty much unfailingly show up for the one after that. We then approve them, and they get published. [snip] I think it is simply that our workflow has not been apparent. [...] The agenda this month covered over 50 reports and was more than 3000 lines long. Having the agenda in version control, where we can cooperatively expand on it, review it, and comment on it, *before* the meeting greatly reduces the time-cost of the meeting. We covered that *entire* agenda in a mere 70 minutes. And the amount of review/coverage is much more than you'd expect. The Directors are reviewing all of that over the couple days leading up the meeting, so that 70 minutes is just the parts which require vocal discussion. [snip]
