[Noisebridge-discuss] meet tomorrow?
Al Billings
albill at arcanology.com
Tue May 27 20:33:04 UTC 2008
Noah Balmer wrote:
> 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.
>
So, people are advocating for people to, possibly, pay a couple of
hundred dollars a month in order for us to get a space in San Francisco
but these same people putting in money won't get any say in how the
group is run, legally? Not everyone who pays a bunch of money is going
to be on the board (or want to be) and we also shouldn't limit board
membership to those who have enough money to pitch in a lot.
What is the solution?
Al
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list