[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Board Elections 2011

[aestetix aestetix]

I think there's a lot of room for misinterpretation as to what board
elections are actually for.

Carrying with my own understanding that the point of the board is to handle
external affairs which may arise, rather than to monitor the ongoings within
Noisebridge itself, and to that end performing only with the most minimal
obligations required by the nonprofit status, let me elaborate on what I
think Jim is getting at.

Culturally, we view elections as a sports game or a class president round.
It usually boils down to who is most popular, best looking, has the most
money, or in some way is seen as the "best." This attitude is counterthesis
to the notion that everyone as a member of Noisebridge, either officially or
through community, brings something to the table, and exudes that some
people are "better" than others.

Further, having a popular vote aggrandizes the wrong things. We want to be
able to appreciate people for who they are and the cool projects they work
on, not because they were able to get enough votes and "won." It also brings
too much attention to the fact that there's a board, and can extend false
social powers to the board members, when in reality they are just regular
members who are filling out paperwork so the rest of us don't have to worry
about it.

That said, figuring out a valid solution to this is tricky. Picking random
members to be the board could work, but most people don't want to deal with
the actual headache of legalese and paperwork when the board does get called
for something, or don't realize how annoying it can be, and why those of us
who are not on the board are so gracious to those on the board who handle
that stuff for us. Plus, we do have board members who know the legal stuff
decently, and it could make sense to simply let them go on unless one wants
to step down.

Most of us who have been around Noisebridge for a while already understand
this, so perhaps this is a good time to let new people ask questions. I'm
assuming we do a sort of introductory thing at the meetings, but perhaps
having a meeting where we go into a bit of detail on the purpose of the
board and how it differs from what elections would normally entail would be
cool?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> >
> >   this voting business seems distasteful. last
> > year there was a little discussion that included
> > the suggestion of randomly picking board members:
> > i like that a lot, kind of like the way we got
> > our president--worked great!
>
> I'm curious to understand what you find distasteful in the nomination
> process?
>
> From what pool of candidates could we randomly select from? To
> clarify, the Presidential position is not a position on the board it
> is an officer. As far as I know, we've never had random selection of
> board members.
>
> We will be discussing this proposal and hopefully coming to a
> consensus on something at next weeks meeting.
>
> >   is there any reason why we can't just draft
> > members in good standing and let them object if
> > they don't want to be board members?
>
> Is is possible (if you are in good standing) to just nominate
> everyone, and those who are uninterested can concede their nomination.
>
> Cheers,
> jof
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20101216/1cd564dd/attachment-0003.html>