Perhaps a way forward is to discuss first how many seats should be present on the Bureau?
While I don’t want to have a mandate that we have X amount of seats on the Bureau, I think it would be fair to say have a range.
Within organizational theory, a generally accepted answer would be 5 members in a team.
Source: Team Size - What is the Ideal Size for a Working Team?.
I would propose we have a range of 5-7 members. This would allow the Bureau to flex a bit in the event that one or two members want to go after an initiative, rather than play the role of the Bureau. There would be five remaining members that could carry out the role. And with seven members should none of them want to go after an initiative, wouldn’t be too much past an ideal size of five members.
Once we know how many seats we’re looking to fill, similar to the ENS delegate proposal (and other proposals) what I do find is that there are some questions regarding agreement in the community principles. I don’t want to overcomplicate this - but some sort of mini-charter or guiding principles might be good to come up with that each delegate proposing themselves would agree to abide by / follow.
Also there could be grounds for removal should a Bureau member / SWAT Member to be found in not abiding by the guidelines (as touched upon lightly before in other conversations).
The Bureau member would be elected to a time-boxed duration, e.g. 3, 4, 6 months of which they would have to resubmit a delegate proposal again. Keeping in mind of course, that this is very much a pilot program, but it would be good to convey that this is a pro tempore position, and not pro vita during and after the pilot.
I’ve only touched on a few ideas on some of the criteria that should be defined surrounding a Bureau position. What are some blind spots that I may have that others can think of that should be shared here?
Great work community!
Brian