8. Board composition (2)
I wonder whether a 3-person board of directors is so functional and effective.
The foundation design is a cathedral (from The Cathedral and The Bazaar, by Eric S. Raymond) with just three people on the board.
Yes, it is a team of managers (because we’ve reserved the term members for the steering L3C).
However, the cathedral is a mischaracterization. In history, there have been numerous successful foundations to support the development and implementation of open-source software that started with a three-person board of directors, including the inventor/benevolent dictator:
- The Free Software Foundation (FSF). When it was founded by Richard Stallman in 1985, it had a board of directors with three members.
- The Open Source Initiative (OSI). The OSI was founded in 1998 by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens, along with a third initial member, to promote and protect open-source software by certifying licenses and advocating for open-source principles. While the exact composition of the board has evolved, the foundation initially had a small core group of influential members guiding its mission.
- Apache Software Foundation (ASF): Founded in 1999, the ASF initially had a small group of individuals instrumental in its creation. The initial board included several key contributors to the Apache HTTP Server project, though the specific number of members can vary over time.
- Python Software Foundation (PSF): The PSF started with a small board in 2001 to support the Python programming language. The initial board of directors was composed of a few key figures in the Python community, including Guido van Rossum, the creator of Python.
- Linux Foundation: Although the Linux Foundation (founded in 2000 as the Open Source Development Labs) had a larger initial advisory board, its governing structure initially included a small, focused group of influential members from the open-source community, including Linus Torvalds, who played a significant role in guiding the foundation’s early direction.
I believe the structure is too narrow. We need more Board members.
One of our design principles is that we run it like a company, but it IS a board in a legal sense.
It is only reasonable, safe, and logical to first finish things in a small technical team and only then start diversifying.
We’ll reverse the question: How do you balance board managers over interest groups and continents? Does it become a political mess quickly?