X-Message-Number: 30260
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: According to Merkle  "We directors are like Godfathers!"
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 09:17:03 +0100
References: <>

On 5 Jan 2008, at 09:56, david pizer wrote:

>> 1.  It would always be easier for a slick writing
>> and talking person, or one
>> who appeals to the masses by telling them how
>> "compassionate" or "libertarian"
>> he is, to persuade a lot of people who haven't met
>> him to vote for him.  He
>> still may be corrupt or incompetent.  A look at
>> United States election history
>> will surely prove that the public will happily vote
>> for idiots and criminals
>> who merely promise the right things and hide their
>> past well.  The current
>> system at Alcor has produced a remarkably low
>> percentage of Directors who are
>> criminals or idiots.
>
> DAVE'S REPLY:  Wrong!  When you left, Fred Chamberlain
> fooled the entire board. He got them to make him
> president.  Then he mishandled hundreds of thousands
> of dollars of money from Alcor and/or its members.

It seems unlikely that the Board will make major changes that will  
decrease their power. Therefore, an incremental approach is most  
likely the only real option.

In general, the self-appointing model is most appropriate for the  
control of funds, as opposed to direction of a company. Therefore, a  
long-run goal could be to transfer direction to an elected Board,  
while retaining the present structure as responsible for long-term  
fund management. This would also sharply reduce the risk of someone  
trying to get on the Board with the objective of financial gain.

A first step would be to set up an Advisory Board, which would have  
full access to information and participation in meetings, but whose  
votes were advisory to the Board. I don't think this should be a large  
group. Either the same size or less than the Board. Over a period of  
time, it would become apparent whether better decisions were coming  
from the advisors than from the Board. At this point, the Board would  
most likely be willing to transfer some power to the Advisory Board.  
In general, areas where the Advisory Board was demonstrating the most  
superiority to the Board would be the first to be transferred.

The reason I suggest a small group is because they could function as a  
shadow Board, thus directly comparable in competence, etc. Also, the  
group dynamics suggest that 5 to 7 is probably optimal.



dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30260