Be more intentional about our Board involvement

[tobie]

Currently the Bylaws mention that the CPC can designate two directors:

• the "CPC Director", and
• the "At Large Community Director."

In the CPC's charter these are both considered "CPC Directors", and no distinction is made between them, perhaps because it is a little weird to have a CPC Director for "At Large" projects, but not "Impact" ones.

Boards make decisions about a number of things which impact projects directly, in particular, allocation of funds and how IP is handled (which impacts day to day operations of projects through requirements around CLAs, which dependency you're allowed to pick, etc.).

It is rare for foundations to allow projects to have a direct say in these matters or get seats on the board, as this is usually the purview of the membership. I would like us to be more intentional in how the CPC leverages this privilege.

At the very least, I would want board candidates to make a statement about why they're running and what they are planning to achieve.

But I think it would be more productive for the CPC to think about issues it would want to see tackled by the board (e.g. #953, #699), and pick CPC directors through consensus rather than through elections. The idea would be to have the CPC directors be ambassadors of the CPC and the projects and be the ones driving conversations with the board on topics labelled accordingly.

[mcollina]

We are not in agreement on the removal of the election. Big +1 for all the rest.