at the end of 6 months: executive committee

[Ines Shaw]

Mary proposed:
"1. When the discussion ends in six months, we call for nominations for a
temporary executive committee with a one-year term of office.

2. We hold an online election."

My impression so far is that there seems to be agreement about proceeding
with an executive committee not only at the end of six months but afterwards.

"3. The committee takes the principles that emerged during the discussion
and drafts by-laws for the organization,..."

May another possibility be entertained?  How about having an executive
committee and a separate advisory board working interactively?

This executive committe could be attempt to have a diverse composition, a
mixture of people of different ranks (including students), disciplinary
backgrounds, regions, experience (including the inexperienced with
organizational structure), etc. (criteria need to be determined along with
numbers).  They would do what is suggested above but in an interactive
fashion with the advisory board, seeking the board's feedback all along.

The advisory board could consist of those people with experience in journal
and organizational boards, executive committees, etc.  They would be
providing feedback to the executive committee.

Mary continues:
"[the executive committee] sets up an institutional structure
(non-profit status and the like), and otherwise gets things rolling.

4. As  its last duty, the committee organizes an executive committee or
whatever form of officers we (the list) decide we want."

I would like to suggest that consideration be given to a steering committee
and an advisory board and subdivisions, whether the last should be there
initially or later, I'm not sue, but I will not expand on because this may
be picked up later by the executive committee.

My reason for these suggestions is to retain the democratic intention
initially proposed, a wide representation of voices, given that the
narrowing the number of people closely involved in making decisions and
setting up the organization(the executive committee) is needed.  Even
considering the involvement of a larger group through election, it seems to
me that there is more room for creativity, positive innovation, and fewer
chances of limited or biased representation of views or orientations in a
set up which allows for a combination of experience (advisory board) and
mixed experience (executive committee).  But perhaps there are
disadvantages with this set-up or  advantages to having only an executive
committee which I have not contemplated yet.