Roy Bamford wrote:
> The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for election 
> for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the council, 
> today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset of 
> council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation split 
> that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created.
> 
> We need rules to stop that situation from occuring.
> 

Is this the case?  That we need to stop the council/trustees from
overlapping?  Is it true that the council/foundation split was one of
the reasons the two bodies were created?

My understanding is that the reason we have two bodies is so that people
can contribute to either the council and/or the trustees based on their
enthusiasm or ability to contribute, without being required to
contribute to both.  Also - due to the foundation being a US corporation
it is likely the case that we can't have non-US-residents holding board
positions.  So, the split is a practical matter - not a matter of
principle per se.

I wasn't seriously involved back when the trustees were created so I 
won't presume to argue that I really know all the reasons for it being a 
separate body.  However, I don't think that really matters - the only 
thing that matters is if we think it should be forced to be such today.

In my opinion the benefits of joint council/trustee membership outweigh 
the downside.  However, I'm sure things will go on fine either way - 
I'll trust the trustees/council to make the right decision.