How the PPA's board should be composed

[BluffTHIS!]

The other thread I started got off topic with a debate over whether certain individuals should or should not be on the board, as well on what types of individuals should or shouldn't be there. So I am starting this thread to discuss that. My view which I stated there, is that it is unreasonable to expect the PPA to hold elections for the board because most of its members aren't active enough in the issue to care. Thus it probably is going to have to be self-chosen to some degree. Furthermore I believe it is unreasonable to expect a board with zero conflicts of interests, and that as long as they constitute a minority, there can be members who are owners/employees in CP or other magazines, or name players with sponsorship deals with major online sites. There just shouldn't be too many of them again.


So I would suggest that potential members of a newly constituted board be chosen to some formula as follows:


A) ex-officio members - the president and chairman =2

B) reps of CP magazine - choose only 1

-Allyson Jaffrey Schulman
-Jan Fischer
-Linda Johnson

C) players who rep various sites - choose only 1
-Fossilman
-Chris Ferguson
-Daniel Negraneau

D) state directors of PPA (regular poker players presumably)- choose 5 or 6

E) high profile members of various professions who are poker players but who have no financial interests in any B&M or online gaming company or advertising media for same - choose 3 or 4

-Prof. Rose
-etc.


If some type of formula like above were used, the possibilities for major conflicts of interests involving a majority of the board, as currently exists, would be very small to non-existant. Some won't be happy with any board members with such conflicts, and the PPA's current board won't be happy with fewer ones most likely. But the above or something similar to it is a reasonable compromise.