On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 18:03 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>
> I'm quite keen not to be a signatory since I'm not in the US.
> Capital One (in the UK) already have my personal data as until 
> recently, I had an account with them.

That's fine I didn't even bother asking in detail about having out of
country officers or trustees on file. It's likely best we just avoid
that entirely, till we need to cross that bridge.

> Point to ponder ...
> Should only trustees be signatories or should we permit officers to 
> operate the account too?

Well our treasurer has to have authority. Not sure if we want to require
President or VP as well. I don't see a point to having secretary on
file. We might keep 1-2 trustees on file as a backup. That way someone
can help add/remove people in the absence of others.

> Trustees serve as officers today but that may not always be the case. 
> Indeed, it may be desireable to split the roles.  

The roles should be split. Trustees should oversee the officers.
Officers make the will of the trustees happen. They do not think or act
on their own. Trustees rarely act, but pass their will on to the
officers to make it happen.

At least that's my take.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation