[Noisebridge-discuss] board nomination principles

[Andy Isaacson]

As was discussed in part at yesterday's meeting, we have a vacancy on
the board of Noisebridge.  (Or at least, we will, once the paperwork is
completed.)

This may cause some legal kerfluffle with our 501(c)3 application, but
I'm confident that we'll work it out.

We will want to fill the position fairly soon.  David Molnar has covered
the potential legal ramifications already:
https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/board/2008-November/000213.html

Pending the resolution of the issues he raises, we will need to
implement some sort of nomination and voting process -- conforming both
to the legal requirements of California corporation law and to our
principles and goals.

I'd like to suggest the following principles for discussion:

1. CA law seems to require that we have a majority-rules vote for the
   actual binding election.  (Unless we specified something else in our
   bylaws, which AFAIK we didn't.)
2. but we can precede that with a consensus process as we choose.
3. any member in good standing is eligible to be nominated to the board.
   (However, I suspect we may encounter difficulty electing an Anonymous
   to the board, so nominees should be comfortable having their Real
   Name and a valid mailing address associated with the corporation.)
4. nominations should be made by another member (no self-nomination) and
   require a second.  (Before nominating someone it's probably a good
   idea to ask them if they're willing, though.)
5. nominations can be made electronically by email to -discuss or in
   person at a Tuesday meeting.  (I guess we could have wiki nominations
   too for the SMTP refuseniks, but somebody else will have to suggest
   how to implement that.)
6. Nominees should be prepared to provide a platform statement during
   the election process.
7. As always, the Noisebridge board's primary precept is "All of the
   liability, none of the power."  If you're thinking of running for
   board because you think it'll be cool to tell people what to do,
   think again.
8. Whether or not it turns out to be necessary that the "current legal
   membership" (ie the founders and current board members) make the
   binding vote, we should hold a vote of the dues-paying membership and
   abide by that decision.

... ok, those weren't all principles.  but whatever.

Thoughts?

-andy (with love for all protocol refuseniks)