[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