While I’m worried about the proliferation of committees/groups, I’m sympathetic to the idea of Trustees (the bottom of the WG minutes, now posted at Working Group minutes, suggests this terminology instead of Members). In particular, I’m convinced by Simon’s
It is an exception-handling mechanism for the (hopefully unlikely) case in which the Board becomes dysfunctional, or somehow captured by some sub-group. This may be unlikely, but if it does happen it can be self-perpetuating and hard to recover from. In that case the Members can act together to reconstitute the Board.
It is easy for me to see the possibility of this capture, even if I think the probability is low. Having Trustees also makes a nice forcing function for the Board+ED to make (at least) annual presentations on the State of the Foundation.
I don’t feel strongly on this, but I do think it would be awkward to create this function later – and it would be too late if we create it only “when needed”, almost by definition.