[Noisebridge-discuss] meet tomorrow?

[Noah Balmer]

8:00 3353 cesar
chavez<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3353+Cesar+Chavez,+San+Francisco,+CA+94110&sll=37.748179,-122.417179&sspn=0.009552,0.019484&ie=UTF8&ll=37.749204,-122.416449&spn=0.009552,0.019484&z=16&iwloc=addr>
works for me.

My gedanken experiment went something like this.  I'm sure that after
Julia's class I might have other ideas for actions the board might take if
things go bad, but here's what I've got for now:

*Scenario: a board member (or a minority of the board) is not doing their
job*
*No members:* The rest of the board figures out what's going on with them
and takes appropriate action, including removal by a majority of board
members then in office (note, not a majority of a quorum) if necessary.
*With members:* same thing happens, but the members are talking about
whether or not they should get involved, and fighting out the drama, instead
of talking about how to build a better solar powered whiskey fountain.
*Assessment:* Making a whiskey fountain is more fun than arguing about what
happens to the board. Board is fine either way.

*Scenario: the whole board goes gradually lazy or evil, together
No members:* Board members have a legal responsibility to do their job, so
there's a strong motivation for individual board members not to let this
happen. It is of course possible, however.  We can encourage directors to
get their act together or resign but can't force them. This fucking sucks,
we'd better avoid it.
*With Members:*  The members vote the board out, and vote a new board in.
The new board is starting from scratch, but the organization is already in
full swing, with active contracts and other legal responsibilities which
have, until this moment bun run by a presumed incompetent board.
Inexperienced board, suddenly legally responsible for an unfamiliar
inherited mess equals total organizational disaster.  Kicked out board is
pissed, so are any supporters they had, past donors wonder what the deal is
and what they spent their money on, PR nightmare.  This fucking sucks, we'd
better avoid it.
*Assessment:*  The detail-oriented may have noticed that both outcomes
fucking suck and are better avoided.  As Julia put it "If you get to the
point that you need to kick out the whole board, you've already failed."  So
lets make sure we always have new, not yet corrupted people represented as
well as experienced, possibly-corrupted-but-at-least-know-what's-going-on
people.  Julia's suggestion was to start with a five person board, with a
commitment to add board members at regular intervals over the first year or
two so that people's terms end in a staggered fashion.  The bylaws can allow
a varying number of positions on the board (she'd suggested 5-15, and 50%+1
as a quorum, though we'd probably want to start on the lower end of this
range).  Term limits ensure that new people show up on the board at regular
intervals.  The idea is to structure the organization in such a way that it
stays healthy, rather than structure it in such a way that it can make
desperate attempts to save itself when it's unhealthy.






Everyone on the board is term limited, and they all limit out at different
times, so there are always some newer, not yet corrupted people, and some
experienced people who can maintain some continuity


On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:31 AM, David Molnar <dmolnar at eecs.berkeley.edu>
wrote:

> Noah Balmer wrote:
>
>> I'd be fine with going to Mission Creek again, though they'll probably
>> close
>> before we're done.  My house is an option too, it's a block east of
>> Rachel's
>> place, at 3353 cesar chavez, next door to Chicken John's.  Three couches
>> and
>> a projector.
>>
>
> I like the idea of a projector. Let's meet at your place. Would 8pm work
> for you and everyone?
>
> -David Molnar
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20080527/117c1c7e/attachment-0003.html>