DSAI Governance - Document for Discussion

Thank you very much for this document. It is great to see open debate on how the DSAI should be governed moving forward. From my perspective, as supporting an active and mobilised membership, I have a few questions on the most recent governance document.  As I was unable to come over from the Netherlands for the meeting, I may misunderstand some points so, my apologies in advance, if this is the case. My main issues relate to the proposed elected committee structure that sits within a secretariat/cluster mobilisation framework.

My main areas of concern and questions are:

• What is the function of the 4 extra steering committee members?

In terms of work, it would seem the way that the document is positioned that the three Officers have distinct roles and that the Clusters also have clear tasks as they are self-formed. However, with respect to the extra four representatives it is not clear what they do. While two are mentioned the other two roles are unstated. Would it make more sense that there is an NGO cluster focused on NGO issues and how they should relate to the DSAI strategy etc, rather than an NGO representative position created? For example, web and communications will likely form a cluster and have a large role to play in the day to day operational as well as strategic direction of the organisation. Would it not make sense for such an approach to be taken also for NGOs and Postgraduates? This way all interests meet and are on equal terms for contributing to the work that needs to be done.

• Lines of decision making are unclear

The cluster/officer approach in a previous document had clarified where authority for decisions lie and in which domains. However, the decision making  process is not clear in this new document. It suggests that the Steering group with the extra four members have the authority to make decisions yet clusters do not.  It would be good to clarify decision making in the document and that leads to a question concerning communication.
 

• Communication streams between the clusters and with the Officers are not clear in the document.

The only significant mention is ‘invitation’ to bi-annual extended meetings the aim of which is to discuss the work of the clusters.  My suggestion is that it is within clusters that information and new ideas will form that will be essential to developing the DSAI. It would make sense to motivate and incentivise their development through a fair governance structure where such clusters of active members are valued and have equal say in decision processes. I therefore propose that cluster leads attend regular meetings with the Officers and that a cluster framework is established to meet all the needs of the organisation (e.g. funding cluster, communications cluster, postgraduate cluster etc etc). Not all clusters will be relevant to every meeting nor is it likely all will want or be able to attend. It might be helpful to set out the overarching co-ordination framework for clusters in parallel to this document.

Overall, I am wondering if we have not with this document returned to the committee structure that can inhibit membership mobilisation by nature of the election process (representation focused). The ideas of thematic clusters and a secretariat aimed at enabling an active participation in the growth, direction and strategy of the organisation in a flexible and effective way. However, instead of streamlining operations it would appear that there is added complexity to the governance arrangements.  Clusters are positioned in this document are doing important work without, it appears, being sufficiently and equally represented in the decision making processes. It may be the case that this just requires clarification.

It might be useful to relook at the document in the context of a supporting cluster co-ordination framework propose that sets out  what work is necessary to move the organisation forward. Who does it and why? What information is needed and when to make decisions? How is this information communicated, gathered and maintained? Who has the authority to make decisions? Do these answers lead to the structure proposed in the recent document, to the proposed cluster approach or to an alternative form?

As a starting point a co-ordination framework for clusters would be very useful and might answer many of these questions. Thanks again to the members who put this document together. I hope the comments are useful and I look forward to hearing your views.