Ensure that the Haskell Foundation's website and Twitter is updated.
## Responsibilities
1. Ensure that the website and Twitter is kept up to date by the Executive Director
2. Review, refine, and merge or reject, pull request for the website.
3. Consider suggestsions for improving the website, typically made by opening an issue on the website repository, decide which to accept, and seek volunteers or other resources to implement them.
### Approach
The members of this committee will collaborate with the Executive Director to ensure that
the website and Twitter account of Haskell Foundation is regularly updated to ensure transparency
of the procedures and promotion of Haskell Foundation.
The conversation today suggested that there should indeed be delegated powers, such as the ability to direct the Executive Director to address website issues and make decisions about e.g. how best to credit our sponsors, with the expectation that really controversial questions should be directed to the full Board.
I don't know how it best fits into this document, but I would also say that these kinds of questions could also be decided by the ED. Others might feel differently on this point.
I would be cautious about powers to "direct" the ED. I would see it as a group that can offer
ideas
guidance
a sounding board for discussion
person-power for execution
But I would see the ED as primarily responsible for their own prioritisation and time management, informed by guidance from the Publicity Committee among other subcommittees. But if he or she thinks that their time is best spent in some other way, so be it. We need to trust our ED.
If there really is a disagreement about the ED's priorities, we should not have a bunch of committees giving different and perhaps conflicting directions. Rather, it's the job of the Executive Committee (and, ultimately, of the board) to resolve such choices.
TL;DR. I'd say "invite the ED" or "suggest to the ED".
Apart from anything else, if I was the ED that sort of language suggests a more collaborative and supportive relationship than does "direct".
The committee has the ability to direct the Executive Director to address website issues and to perform other public-relations tasks.
The committee does not have the power to address really controversial questions (e.g., edit sponsor credits) which should be directed to the full Board.
## Term
This is a standing (permanent) committee
## Membership
1. Niki Vazou (chair)
2. Alejandro Serrano
3. Andres Löh
## Membership Rules
The chair of the committee must be member of the board, however the committee may draw its members from the Haskell community.
## Voting Procedure
The voting procedure of this committee is the same as the procedure for the
The conversation today suggested that there should indeed be delegated powers, such as the ability to direct the Executive Director to address website issues and make decisions about e.g. how best to credit our sponsors, with the expectation that really controversial questions should be directed to the full Board.
I don't know how it best fits into this document, but I would also say that these kinds of questions could also be decided by the ED. Others might feel differently on this point.
I would be cautious about powers to "direct" the ED. I would see it as a group that can offer
But I would see the ED as primarily responsible for their own prioritisation and time management, informed by guidance from the Publicity Committee among other subcommittees. But if he or she thinks that their time is best spent in some other way, so be it. We need to trust our ED.
If there really is a disagreement about the ED's priorities, we should not have a bunch of committees giving different and perhaps conflicting directions. Rather, it's the job of the Executive Committee (and, ultimately, of the board) to resolve such choices.
TL;DR. I'd say "invite the ED" or "suggest to the ED".
Apart from anything else, if I was the ED that sort of language suggests a more collaborative and supportive relationship than does "direct".