My platform:
1. Find out how much money the site has.
2. Remove MetaTalk and Jobs sub-sites.
3. Discuss selling off FanFare, if finances are dire.
4. Require some transparency on the big donors the site has had over the last 3 years, and determine if there's been any conflicts of interest.
5. Welcome back anyone who has been banned unfairly.
6. Hold weekly Zoom calls, to gather ideas/complaints/etc from the membership.
7. Step down after one term, as an example to others to maximize their service but not overstay.
8. Any suggestion I see in comments, that seem reasonable, also accepted.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:52 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]

Why would you sell Fanfare but give away MeTa? MeTa gets a thousand percent more clicks
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:34 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]

toodleydoodley: "Why would you sell Fanfare but give away MeTa? MeTa gets a thousand percent more clicks"

Click, like clout doesn't really pay the bills.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:36 PM on May 30

What, then, would be the bill-paying value of FanFare
posted by sickos haha yes dot jpg at 7:46 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]

I would potentially be interested in running. My main concerns right now are ensuring we are on a stable financial footing as a nonprofit. However, my main constraint is that I am due with my third child in August, and will have extremely limited bandwidth until early 2026. At that point, I expect to be able to give approximately 5 hours/month toward the effort. If that is insufficient, I will not proceed with running.
posted by samthemander at 7:48 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]

I have to take “sell off a subsite” as facetious because - what? How would one do that?
posted by atoxyl at 7:56 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]

sickos haha yes dot jpg: "What, then, would be the bill-paying value of FanFare"

Who's to say. It's the only part of the site that likely has re-sale value. But we're getting ahead of ourselves, if we're on good financial footing, no need to think about selling the parts to keep us afloat.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:57 PM on May 30

. I think it best if this thread can stay focused solely on declaration of intent to run.

so far, no one has officially declared themselves as a candidate for the board of directors.As I said-predicted in the previous thread about elections that a dedicated thread for those who wish to declare a candidacy then present a platform with no other who-ha because I love hoo-ha.
or it's going to get chalky.
we should have another thread so the members can discuss those who are running for the board of directors.

it's a kin to someone announcing perhaps at a press conference a candidacy and the press immediately hounds them for six days.
posted by clavdivs at 8:18 PM on May 30

I think it would be good if this thread focused on collecting names of potential candidates.

As suggested by ssg, once we have a list of official candidates, each could have their own thread with a statement and Q&A.

Such a system makes it less likely that any information would get lost. And in this thread, we could more easily see the number of potential candidates and who they are, without back and forth.
posted by NotLost at 8:18 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]

clavdivs: ". I think it best if this thread can stay focused solely on declaration of intent to run.

so far, no one has officially declared themselves as a candidate for the board of directors.As I said-predicted in the previous thread about elections that a dedicated thread for those who wish to declare a candidacy then present a platform with no other who-ha because I love hoo-ha.
or it's going to get chalky.
we should have another thread so the members can discuss those who are running for the board of directors.

it's a kin to someone announcing perhaps at a press conference a candidacy and the press immediately hounds them for six days."

AHEM. I have so.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:40 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]

I meant to link to this comment by ssg.
posted by NotLost at 8:40 PM on May 30

I plan to run for the board of directors.

My platform, or at least the parts of it i can think of at the moment:

1. Prioritize better moderation. This includes better training of moderators, as well as setting up a rubric for evaluating moderator performance. I would establish a solid working relationship with the Moderation Oversight Committee in order to accomplish this; I think they should be made a standing committee with actual teeth. (Obviously there would be community input into this process, but if you want to know what i personally consider "better moderation" to mean, you can check out the principles expressed in my earlier manifesto.)
2. Ensure that MetaFilter is financially stable. This would mean evaluating current donations, reaching out to potential donors, doing a membership drive, and whatever else the board can think of. I plan to reach out to members of the former Steering Committee, who had some great ideas, and ask them to share info and thoughts on this.
3. Develop a plan for outreach to former members who have buttoned or been unjustly banned (note the word unjustly here; some people have been justly banned). I understand that this is fraught in terms of what we're allowed to do with comms information, and I would certainly run things by legal and the community in order to avoid overstepping.
4. Work toward getting the new site up and running as soon as possible. I have relevant technical expertise here, including database-related expertise, and being on the official board would put me in a good position to be able to help with things like the ETL/content migration. (They can't give some rando access to the live database, obviously, because there's sensitive data in it! But if i am on the board, i'm no longer "some rando" and I can help out.)

I don't imagine that the board position will be super time- or labor-intensive (although there may be exceptional circumstances), and i can certainly put in as much time as would be reasonably required, up to about 30 hours per month (which should be way more time than anyone would really need).
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:02 PM on May 30 [61 favorites]

AHEM. I have so.
a platform does show intent but now offical, two members have declared candidacy.
posted by clavdivs at 9:22 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]

Thanks to adrienneleigh and 9222 for volunteering and describing their platforms.

That said, I don't think putting in the time/effort to describe a full platform is necessary for this thread. A brief description of overall approach/goals should be enough. (Although if you have any radical positions like "Remove MetaTalk and Jobs sub-sites" that would certainly be good to know up front!)

But for the rest of us, let's not get into a back-and-forth with candidates over the merits of what they write. This thread is for finding out how many candidates can be expected (and, I'm realizing, how many candidates can be expected that we might feel comfortable voting for). Part of the reason for this is to inform the board size clauses in the bylaws that are currently being drafted.
posted by trig at 2:04 AM on May 31 [14 favorites]

I hearby announce my candidacy for board member. Why should you vote for me? Well, you probably shouldn't. I have no board or financial experience. Nevertheless, I am launching a serious candidacy.


I joined in... 2008? Username was Jacen in the #54,000 ths. I buttoned in serious protest when it became clear there was no realistic way to hold mods accountable for repeatedly missing self imposed deadlines. My goals as a potential board member are:


Push progress towards the election as soon as possible.


Review the financials and determine if 24/7 mod coverage is necessary or beneficial, or even affordable.


Review the job descriptions and duties of all metafilter employees and determine if they should continue to be employed in such a position.


Create openings for volunteer mods, especially in conjunction with the oversite committee. Volunteer mods shall commit to documenting all actions taken.

Collect user submissions for a cookbook and publish a pdf within weeks.

Answer my board email at least weekly to the best of my ability, even if the answer is "I have no idea".

Work with the community on goals they want to see. There has been a ton of good ideas over the years.
posted by Previous username Jacen at 3:31 AM on May 31 [13 favorites]

I am pleased to announce my candidacy for the board. I've been here quite a long time, have a lot of spouses etc. Simplest thing I'd like you to know is how metafilter has helped me change for the better as a man. I've learned and grown and the subtle and not subtle trends here over the years have shaped my real life as well. I'm a far better ally, father, man-as-member-of-society than I was when I joined. I wish to help be a part of keeping mefi growing and improving to be that for others. I took an entire vacation to Copenhagen based on answers to an ask I posted. I also once intentionally broke a lightbulb to answer an askme.

Platform: governance and transparency. Open communication with members who wish to have their concerns heard whether systemic or pony. Long term survival.

Experience: I have been an elected board member of a large Florida waterfront community for 6 years until I moved. I was also a board member of a 100 year old hobbyist club with hundreds of members in my city, again elected. I'm happy to serve as a general board member and as secretary if that's a desirable role needed as well.

Happy to answer questions!
posted by chasles at 5:34 AM on May 31 [16 favorites]

I just want to say, while I am not running for a board position at this time (I currently attend a total of six board/committee meetings a month, eek! Luckily I’m only on three of them, but still I fear I might start saying “I so move” in my sleep), if there is anyone who is considering running and has a vision for improving Metafilter but is worried they don’t know enough about “how to board member” to implement it, I’m happy to provide one on one support/answers to questions to anyone who would like it. Both as a pre-election thing, and ongoing to the extent that I can predict what the world will look like a few months from now.
posted by brook horse at 6:13 AM on May 31 [27 favorites]

I hereby declare my intent to run for the board.

Previously I was a user since 2006 and buttoned with exhaustion over the endless shitpiling and grar. Came back for US politics because this is still one of the most informed places on the internet with people whose perspectives I have come to trust to keep my kind open and learning new things.

I've worked non-profit adjacent for a long time but never found a board I was as invested in, but this place has helped form me - for whatever that's worth. I'd like to help it be that for others instead of disintegrating into irrelevance.
posted by Lenie Clarke at 8:04 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]

I've gotten a MeMail suggesting I run, and it was such a message that resulted in me running (and ultimately winning, somehow) for the Steering Committee when that was a thing.

I don't think it's a good idea for me to run. Even when I was on the SC, most of what I did was as a result of being on the board, as a fact, than actually being part of the board. I made a bunch of suggestions that no one seemed much interested in; I helped with the fundraiser and auction; I hosted a couple of Metafilter Events (I think those went well); and I attended a bunch of time-consuming meetings that I really don't think I contributed a lot to*. I voted "yes" on a bunch of bylaw things that I don't think I was equipped to understand, really. I can do things if the whim takes me, but I feel like I am fundamentally unserious in a number of capacities.

That gets me to thinking maybe I should be part of an unofficial, or quasi-official, "Friends of Metafilter" group, or a MeFi Auxiliary of some kind? Especially since, after all this time, I still have many personal money troubles, and feel like I should devote more efforts to remedying that, especially since I'm not getting any younger.

* My favorite moment from those meetings was, I was staying at a friend's house who has multiple cats. I was sitting in front of the laptop with the webcam on waiting for the meeting to start, and a very friendly orange boy came over and stat beside me, looking directly into the camera, exactly like he was a participant! I was even a little off-center in the frame so it looked like he was there on purpose! It was just a few seconds but it still tickles me with how it looked. (I may have mentioned this before, but I don't care. It was great!)
posted by JHarris at 8:57 AM on May 31 [14 favorites]

- Hide or block users / posts
- Threaded posts for some
- Empower willing volunteers
- Trash Jobs
- Clean up header and footer
posted by Diskeater at 9:37 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]

I also want to mention that people that don't have board experience should not be discouraged from running. All board members everywhere had a first time. You probably still have a valuable perspective.
posted by NotLost at 10:27 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]

Can someone provide a basic idea of the hours and time zone for the board? Given some of the platforms seem to be "go through the ranks of mods like DOGE" I'm unfortunately interested, if only to provide a counterweight, but living in the UK, I don't think I'd be up for meetings at 1 am BST/GMT.

I've been here for over 20 years, and while I've had periods of low activity, I've more or less been here the entire time. I've generally been a happy camper here and not involved in the politics of running the site (the ratio of posts and comments to MeTa vs other sites attests to this), I'm one of those who doesn't want to see radical changes here.

Before reaching out to those who have been banned, I think reaching out to those who have either closed their accounts or gone inactive, if only to find out what changed for them to leave.

My sole goal is to still have metafilter here in another 20 years looking fairly close (in content and UI) to how it is now. Welcoming to most (I'm happy to have one space on the internet where I don't have to argue about the human rights and inherent thought to exist of trans folk, immigrants, and other folk who routinely get stomped in by society, I like the fact that things are comparably heavily moderated here when compared to most other sites I use) with an active user base.

I'll admit I haven't looked closely at the financials before, but plan to if I end up as one of the few candidates advocating for keeping things fairly steady. I never thought I'd think of myself as conservative about anything, but I like the way metafilter is currently run and want to keep it that way. I'm open to learning about and dealing with instances of mods shutting down people from groups that do not get enough of a voice in the mainstream (excepting the bigots, the absolute last thing I want is the Nazi bar phenomenon, although I feel they get too much of a voice these days), but from what I at least have seen on the blue, that really isn't a problem.

Anyway, I'll have a less steam of consciousness declaration after I see what the field is and know what the hours are
posted by Hactar at 10:38 AM on May 31 [17 favorites]

Someone in the other thread asked for more information about what is required of non-profit board members, a job description if you will, so that prospective board members know what they will be asked to do.

Here is a list based on my own experience, others can chime in.

1. Attend meetings. The schedule for regular board meetings is not set, but they are often monthly.
2. Work as a group to articulate the mission and vision of the organization.
3. Make decisions in the best interest of the organization and its mission (duty of care). Work to understand all of the background information needed to make the best decision possible.
4. Follow the organization’s existing rules and policies (duty of obedience).
5. Putting the organization’s interests above your own and disclosing conflicts of interest (duty of loyalty).
6. In most organizations, manage the hiring of the executive director, who reports to and is accountable to the board, and who manages the employees and day-to-day operations.
7. Monitor the organization’s finances, for example by reviewing monthly reports. Approve budgets and help decide what to do if changes to the budget need to be made.
8. Make policies that govern the running of the org. In practice the split in decision-making between the board and ED varies by organization.
9. Fundraise! This is a huge chunk of the time commitment.
10. Join one or more committees that assist with the day to day work of the org.
posted by mai at 10:56 AM on May 31 [8 favorites]

We aren't exactly short of mathematical brainiacs here. You!
1. Get on the stick
2, Bitcoin (v.) MeCrypto.
3. Play Market.
4. Profit.
5. Sedan chairs and pole bearers for all.
posted by y2karl at 11:40 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]

I read that as "A threat to announce candidates for the board"

Which sounds about right
posted by rikschell at 12:47 PM on May 31 [5 favorites]

mai: "6. In most organizations, manage the hiring of the executive director, who reports to and is accountable to the board, and who manages the employees and day-to-day operations"

And (as multiple people have pointed out elsewhere), in this case the board will need to do some form of the ED's job themselves until they have decided the budget for an ED, decided where the money will come from (it doesn't exist yet), dug up the money, written the job spec, run the interviews and successfully onboarded the ED.

One of the things I think is easy to miss about this is that things like "go to meetings", "monitor finances", "manage employees" sound like admin-ish kind of jobs, but in this context they are really really not. They require very active leadership - not just understanding the current situation, but deciding what the future should look like and actively changing things to make that future come true. For example, that's why people are unsatisfied with the recent analysis of the accounts - sounds like the analysis was done from an admin/accountant perspective (a great idea!) but people were hoping for an analysis from a leadership/CFO perspective, which is a whole different and also essential thing.

Other people's not for profit experiences are extremely relevant and helpful, but they have to be read with the caveat that many of the non profits in question have likely already been built by somebody else, whereas this one has only really been created in the legal sense, so the work of deciding how it should work and making that happen is still outstanding.
posted by quacks like a duck at 12:55 PM on May 31 [22 favorites]

quacks like a duck: "Other people's not for profit experiences are extremely relevant and helpful, but they have to be read with the caveat that many of the non profits in question have likely already been built by somebody else, whereas this one has only really been created in the legal sense, so the work of deciding how it should work and making that happen is still outstanding."

This is an absolutely terrific point....
posted by chasles at 12:59 PM on May 31 [6 favorites]

Well said, quacks like a duck. There's some difficult work to be done here. It's doable work, and doesn't even need to be super contentious; but prospective Board members do need to have a clearer picture of what the organization's needs are right now, from a basic functioning perspective.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:03 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]

One thing that I think is also different than many other orgs, but critical here, is that there is significant appetite* for this to be a community-led and community-first site. Which means** that the board needs to operate a little differently than many other boards. It needs to:

- Prioritize transparency

- Prioritize involving the community in decision making wherever possible, and not in a pro-forma way but in a fundamentally inclusive way. There will be cases where reporting some action or decision after the fact, without involving the community, will be enough, but those should be departures from the default and not the default itself.

- Engage with the community in the community's discussions on site matters, and take feedback onboard.

This last one can be hard sometimes, because it can mean dealing with input from tens or hundreds of people at a time, committing to not taking criticism personally, and being patient and communicative even in the face of snark or what may feel like potshots. But I think it's critical. Especially at this particular stage in our history and this particular point in the site's development.

The current board I think took its standard-board responsibilities somewhat seriously. But I think it neglected the unique community aspect almost entirely. I think it's crucial for that to not happen again.

Speaking for myself personally, I don't need every member of the board to be interacting with the community; that's a specific skill and a big time commitment and I think the board can and should include people who can contribute in different ways. But I'll make sure that at minimum several of the people I'll vote for will be ones who have demonstrated an ability to read and keep up with MetaTalk threads and engage in constructive discussion there - not because they're the only ones who care about the site or the only ones who can contribute, but because I think those are things at least a few members of the board have got to do. And I'll vote for people who commit to treating this nonprofit as a "for the community, by the community" project, rather than a "we'll decide on our own what's best for this community" one.

* well, I have it, and I think many others do too but I can't speak for the community as a whole
** to me, at least
posted by trig at 1:32 PM on May 31 [17 favorites]

time zone for the board?

I don't think we can determine time zones until we know who is on the board. If, just for example, we end up with a board with people in Vancouver, New York, London, and Brussels, it would be an option to alternate meeting times between what works best for the North Americans and what works best for the Europeans, and maybe certain types of votes can be asynchronous.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:46 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]

Not even remotely interested in running, but I think it would make the most sense if one of the goals is to attract a wide variety folks if the meetings rotate timezones between the board members.
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:51 PM on May 31 [2 favorites]

I would urge anyone with a solid understanding of US accounting (I assume MeFiCoFo financials have to follow AICPA standards) to consider running. I think the community needs to have a clear view of the financial situation that covers not just inflows and outflows, but also the drivers behind them. This also means ensuring monthly financials are timely and comparable, as well as considering the community stakeholders and disclosing based on community needs rather than limited to state or federal requirements.
posted by ersatz at 3:09 PM on May 31 [6 favorites]

Other people's not for profit experiences are extremely relevant and helpful, but they have to be read with the caveat that many of the non profits in question have likely already been built by somebody else

Raises hand. Two of the three nonprofits I have direct experience with are ones where I helped build them from scratch, one specifically in a community engagement role. I’m just coming off an exhausting fundraiser event and need to decompress, but I’ll try to come back later and write up some of my perspective on the responsibilities and work required to give folks an idea of what to expect.
posted by brook horse at 3:56 PM on May 31 [9 favorites]

Discuss selling off FanFare
what??? how could you? what's next, kidnap DirtyOldTown and auction him off to the highest bidder? sheesh.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 4:15 PM on May 31 [20 favorites]

DirtyOldTown cannot be kidnapped, he has friends in Wallachia.

There are 6 candadites currently declared .
posted by clavdivs at 5:17 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]

Well, sometimes I decompress by list-making and found myself starting to write without thinking, so, here we are:

I have experience with the creation of two nonprofits—one is entirely volunteer with a budget of less than $10k a year, while the other has paid staff and a budget of about $900k a year. I also work at a nonprofit that has a similar budget and staff size to Metafilter and am on a committee there and attend board meetings.

Here is what I would expect board member responsibilities to include from the perspective of building a nonprofit from scratch:

1. Develop a concise mission statement from which all other responsibilities will stem. This statement of purpose does not, in my opinion, reflect the actual mission of Metafilter: “to educate the public on the importance of community-oriented, human-moderated internet spaces for thoughtful discussion and meaningful connection; to advance knowledge about them; to promote social welfare through their support; and to combat their deterioration. The purpose is also to foster education, appreciation, participation, and community, by curating and creating content from across the world and supporting inclusive, thoughtful discussion.” This mission statement would be more suitable to a nonprofit that, for example, helps people found and maintain internet spaces. I have a friend whose nonprofit helps BIPOC small businesses obtain or redesign their web presence; the mission statement here fits something more like that work. But Metafilter is not focused on education or promotion of internet spaces except by example, and that’s really not its main purpose. Especially if pursuing 501c3 status, the board will need to identify which IRS activity code Metafilter falls under and take that into account when developing the mission statement. https://urbaninstitute.github.io/nccs-legacy/ntee/ntee.html On my quick perusal, the closest might be A30, Media & Communications, but I’ll leave that for the board and community to figure out.

2. Create a plan for community engagement as early as possible. Establish procedures for engaging the community, collecting feedback, and empowering community members within the organization. This may include surveys, focus groups, advisory councils, and more. The board will need to either have someone who can develop and manage these engagement efforts, or contract out for it. I'm obviously biased as this is my primary role, but I think having someone on the board whose background is specifically in community engagement is extremely helpful.

3. Identify organizational needs and develop plans to meet them. Some examples:
- Determining which committees are needed and recruiting people to fill them. Some nonprofits use a three-committee structure (governance, internal affairs, external affairs; more on that later). Others set up a number of committees with more specific focuses, like marketing, fundraising, finance, strategic planning, operations, etc. Typically, each committee is chaired by a board member; there may be other members of the board on the committee, and/or non-board volunteers (this can include both staff and community members). Not every board member has to be on a committee, but some will likely be needed.
- Reviewing the activities of the nonprofit and determining what is needed in terms of people + resources (both amounts and specific skills/types of resources) to maintain those activities, and then to continue to grow and develop them. This may include recruitment and management of volunteers, review and research of resource options, and generating new ideas for activities and plans to launch them.
- Develop policies and procedures; create an operating manual that includes all of the details that aren’t in the bylaws. This may also be done by committee but will likely involve some full board involvement as well.

4. Set a budget and determine how finances will be managed. May be delegated to a committee but will at least need to be voted on by the full board.

5. Develop a year-long plan for fundraising. This includes both development of fundraising events and relationship management with recurring donors and identifying and engaging new donors. This may be largely delegated to a committee but generally the entire board is expected to participate in fundraiser events to some extent.

6. In lieu of an executive director, recruit and manage employees. This would likely be done by one of the committees rather than the full board (internal affairs in a three board structure).

7. Develop a marketing/public relations plan, which includes branding and social media strategies as well as ensuring consistent messaging from all board and staff.

There’s certainly more I’m missing, but these are the major things that come to mind when I think back on the process of creating nonprofits. This may sound like a lot—please remember that not every board member is meaningfully involved with every point on this list. For the $900k budget nonprofit, myself, on a board of eight, I was primarily only responsible for point 2, community engagement. That was my jam and I had 2-4 folks on committee supporting me. While I did research, gave feedback, and voted on the remaining points, I was not primarily responsible for developing any of the other points. This was less true on the smaller nonprofit, where I dabbled in a lot of different points—but each one required much less of me.

In order to accomplish these things, board members usually meet monthly for a full board meeting, and then committees meet separately monthly or more as well. I have seen committees meet as frequently as weekly in the development phase, but that was relatively short lived (a few months) and they were shorter meetings (30 mins or so). They also are assigned and work on tasks outside of board meetings—so there needs to be a process for delegating tasks. I would say that per nonprofit, in the development phase, it took about 20-25 hours a month of work from me. But that only lasted about 6-8 months. Now that most of the foundational development is done it’s more like 8-10 hours a month.

And Metafilter may not need that much development in all of these areas. It's much more limited in its functions than a lot of nonprofits, and some of this (operations and budgets for example) already have some kind of foundation instead of being totally from scratch. And, for example, for the entirely volunteer nonprofit, "develop a year-long plan for fundraising" looks more like "how do we collect/encourage donations at our events, get people receipts for tax-deductions, and make online donations as accessible as possible?" This may not be more than a few short discussions and a few weekends of work. That said, since Metafilter has staff salaries to support, it will probably take more development work than that, but maybe not as much as if you were starting entirely from scratch.
posted by brook horse at 5:21 PM on May 31 [22 favorites]

I forgot to say more on the three committee board structure. I would highly encourage we at least consider this approach. It makes things more streamlined and a lot harder to get bogged down or lost in having eight different committees. In a three committee structure, you have:

1. Governance. This committee handles compliance of all kinds, as well as board accountability. It also handles recruitment, so in this case I believe would likely handle elections as well.

2. Internal affairs. Handles finances, staff policies and procedures, evaluation of activities. The Mod Oversight Committee would likely be folded into this committee, unless its role is only advisory.

3. External affairs. Handles community engagement, fundraising, events, communications.

Now, this structure does not preclude outside advisory committees, so the BIPOC board could still stay its own thing under this structure, and there could be any number of other community advisory committees as well. But the people actually developing and running the nonprofit would be organized into one of these three committees.

You may also have an executive team which includes the board president (and ED if there is one) and the chairs of all committees so they can meet and communicate about what's happening across committees.
posted by brook horse at 5:33 PM on May 31 [15 favorites]

Rather than holding elections, can we hold a Thunderdome-style series of fights?
posted by rikschell at 5:39 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]

DirtyOldTown cannot be kidnapped, he has friends in Wallachia.

Oh!

* scratches items off list*
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:42 PM on May 31 [8 favorites]

I'm considering running for the board, but TBH I think I'm more interested in the implementation of and tracking of initiatives - ie getting shit done.
posted by coriolisdave at 7:13 PM on May 31 [17 favorites]

Well, that seems like a vital and heretofore unfilled role!
posted by trig at 9:30 PM on May 31 [4 favorites]

Yeah, feels like a critical missing piece
posted by coriolisdave at 2:05 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]

Quacks like a duck, trig, and brook horse all make fantastic points.

A few things that all of the best board members of my organization have had in common: leadership in the form of taking initiative; follow through on tasks they volunteer to do; devoting enough time to follow through on tasks; thoughtful listening to others on the board and in our broader community; and willingness to offer their perspective, but in a way that still carries a certain amount of deference to those who have more expertise in a given area.

Board members have sometimes come in with a lot of ego and without a lot of follow through, and it's frustrating to work with. Often, but not always, cis white men.
posted by mai at 8:32 AM on June 1 [5 favorites]

I've never wanted to have any kind of leadership role here at metafilter, this is where I come to inflict my give-people-advice-disease on willing participants, have fun, and do jokes. But I'm running for board now because I'm tired of feeling annoyed and despondent and I'm tired of watching bright, thoughtful people who care about this place continue to holler into a void that doesn't appear to give a shit about what they have to say.

Do you have any experience in non profit leadership?
No, I do not.

How about with bylaws or any of the legal stuff?
Also no.

Are you actually qualified for this in any way?
I have a Full Life and regularly work on projects with tens of stakeholders. So, no.

Um okay...?
What I bring to the table:

• I'm a part of this community, in person and online. I've met many of you. Some I'm even lucky enough to get to call friends. The rest of y'all have almost 2 decades of content to go peruse if you want (but watch where you step, I overshare and I've been on here since before my frontal lobe was done cooked), and you can email/memail/call me out/call me on the phone/literally whatever any time and I'll answer you.

• I read and participate in metatalk and I'm not going to stop yapping unless someone permabands me.

• I understand the difference between secrets and privacy and this is not a difficult distinction for me to make. The community should be participants in information that's relevant to the community.

• I have basically zero tolerance for bullshit. If something's my fault? I own it. If I screw around and fail to do something? I tell on myself. If I think something is stupid, I'll say it. I don't need anyone to be nice to me or to praise me or to give me encouragement to do the things that are my own responsibility to do.

There. That's not a platform, I don't have one. I don't want to have any more power than any other person at metafilter. I would prefer to go back to doing my shitty little jokes and be loudly assertive with my opinions in Ask, but unfortunately I feel very strongly that we're being daily dragged into the mire here from which there will be no escape and the community means too much to me to stand by and watch that happen. Please only vote for me if there's not enough people to field a full board without the let's-sell-FanFare (??????????) guy getting in on auto draft.
posted by phunniemee at 11:11 AM on June 1 [59 favorites]

wait we know this. aren't we supposed to vote quidnunc kid
posted by neuromodulator at 12:03 PM on June 1 [24 favorites]

For those playing at home, I think we have six candidates, and one other considering the idea.
posted by NotLost at 12:12 PM on June 1

Seven, I believe, assuming Diskeater is announcing intent to run, which I interpreted posting a platform to mean. Here are the current announcements/platforms [hits save point button]:

922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a: "My platform:
1. Find out how much money the site has.
2. Remove MetaTalk and Jobs sub-sites.
3. Discuss selling off FanFare, if finances are dire.
4. Require some transparency on the big donors the site has had over the last 3 years, and determine if there's been any conflicts of interest.
5. Welcome back anyone who has been banned unfairly.
6. Hold weekly Zoom calls, to gather ideas/complaints/etc from the membership.
7. Step down after one term, as an example to others to maximize their service but not overstay.
8. Any suggestion I see in comments, that seem reasonable, also accepted."

adrienneleigh: "I plan to run for the board of directors.

My platform, or at least the parts of it i can think of at the moment:

1. Prioritize better moderation. This includes better training of moderators, as well as setting up a rubric for evaluating moderator performance. I would establish a solid working relationship with the Moderation Oversight Committee in order to accomplish this; I think they should be made a standing committee with actual teeth. (Obviously there would be community input into this process, but if you want to know what i personally consider "better moderation" to mean, you can check out the principles expressed in my earlier manifesto.)
2. Ensure that MetaFilter is financially stable. This would mean evaluating current donations, reaching out to potential donors, doing a membership drive, and whatever else the board can think of. I plan to reach out to members of the former Steering Committee, who had some great ideas, and ask them to share info and thoughts on this.
3. Develop a plan for outreach to former members who have buttoned or been unjustly banned (note the word unjustly here; some people have been justly banned). I understand that this is fraught in terms of what we're allowed to do with comms information, and I would certainly run things by legal and the community in order to avoid overstepping.
4. Work toward getting the new site up and running as soon as possible. I have relevant technical expertise here, including database-related expertise, and being on the official board would put me in a good position to be able to help with things like the ETL/content migration. (They can't give some rando access to the live database, obviously, because there's sensitive data in it! But if i am on the board, i'm no longer "some rando" and I can help out.)

I don't imagine that the board position will be super time- or labor-intensive (although there may be exceptional circumstances), and i can certainly put in as much time as would be reasonably required, up to about 30 hours per month (which should be way more time than anyone would really need)."

Previous username Jacen: "I hearby announce my candidacy for board member. Why should you vote for me? Well, you probably shouldn't. I have no board or financial experience. Nevertheless, I am launching a serious candidacy.


I joined in... 2008? Username was Jacen in the #54,000 ths. I buttoned in serious protest when it became clear there was no realistic way to hold mods accountable for repeatedly missing self imposed deadlines. My goals as a potential board member are:


Push progress towards the election as soon as possible.


Review the financials and determine if 24/7 mod coverage is necessary or beneficial, or even affordable.


Review the job descriptions and duties of all metafilter employees and determine if they should continue to be employed in such a position.


Create openings for volunteer mods, especially in conjunction with the oversite committee. Volunteer mods shall commit to documenting all actions taken.

Collect user submissions for a cookbook and publish a pdf within weeks.

Answer my board email at least weekly to the best of my ability, even if the answer is "I have no idea".

Work with the community on goals they want to see. There has been a ton of good ideas over the years."

chasles: "I am pleased to announce my candidacy for the board. I've been here quite a long time, have a lot of spouses etc. Simplest thing I'd like you to know is how metafilter has helped me change for the better as a man. I've learned and grown and the subtle and not subtle trends here over the years have shaped my real life as well. I'm a far better ally, father, man-as-member-of-society than I was when I joined. I wish to help be a part of keeping mefi growing and improving to be that for others. I took an entire vacation to Copenhagen based on answers to an ask I posted. I also once intentionally broke a lightbulb to answer an askme.

Platform: governance and transparency. Open communication with members who wish to have their concerns heard whether systemic or pony. Long term survival.

Experience: I have been an elected board member of a large Florida waterfront community for 6 years until I moved. I was also a board member of a 100 year old hobbyist club with hundreds of members in my city, again elected. I'm happy to serve as a general board member and as secretary if that's a desirable role needed as well.

Happy to answer questions!"

Lenie Clarke: "I hereby declare my intent to run for the board.

Previously I was a user since 2006 and buttoned with exhaustion over the endless shitpiling and grar. Came back for US politics because this is still one of the most informed places on the internet with people whose perspectives I have come to trust to keep my kind open and learning new things.

I've worked non-profit adjacent for a long time but never found a board I was as invested in, but this place has helped form me - for whatever that's worth. I'd like to help it be that for others instead of disintegrating into irrelevance."

Diskeater: "- Hide or block users / posts
- Threaded posts for some
- Empower willing volunteers
- Trash Jobs
- Clean up header and footer"

phunniemee: "I've never wanted to have any kind of leadership role here at metafilter, this is where I come to inflict my give-people-advice-disease on willing participants, have fun, and do jokes. But I'm running for board now because I'm tired of feeling annoyed and despondent and I'm tired of watching bright, thoughtful people who care about this place continue to holler into a void that doesn't appear to give a shit about what they have to say.

Do you have any experience in non profit leadership?
No, I do not.

How about with bylaws or any of the legal stuff?
Also no.

Are you actually qualified for this in any way?
I have a Full Life and regularly work on projects with tens of stakeholders. So, no.

Um okay...?
What I bring to the table:

• I'm a part of this community, in person and online. I've met many of you. Some I'm even lucky enough to get to call friends. The rest of y'all have almost 2 decades of content to go peruse if you want (but watch where you step, I overshare and I've been on here since before my frontal lobe was done cooked), and you can email/memail/call me out/call me on the phone/literally whatever any time and I'll answer you.

• I read and participate in metatalk and I'm not going to stop yapping unless someone permabands me.

• I understand the difference between secrets and privacy and this is not a difficult distinction for me to make. The community should be participants in information that's relevant to the community.

• I have basically zero tolerance for bullshit. If something's my fault? I own it. If I screw around and fail to do something? I tell on myself. If I think something is stupid, I'll say it. I don't need anyone to be nice to me or to praise me or to give me encouragement to do the things that are my own responsibility to do.

There. That's not a platform, I don't have one. I don't want to have any more power than any other person at metafilter. I would prefer to go back to doing my shitty little jokes and be loudly assertive with my opinions in Ask, but unfortunately I feel very strongly that we're being daily dragged into the mire here from which there will be no escape and the community means too much to me to stand by and watch that happen. Please only vote for me if there's not enough people to field a full board without the let's-sell-FanFare (??????????) guy getting in on auto draft."
posted by brook horse at 12:20 PM on June 1 [14 favorites]

I will probably run, if only to see how badly someone can lose despite having a clear advantage on an alphabetically sorted ballot.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:21 PM on June 1 [10 favorites]

I think we would need clear confirmation that Diskeater plans to run. I took that comment as just something desired.
posted by NotLost at 4:13 PM on June 1 [1 favorite]

second that.
posted by clavdivs at 4:20 PM on June 1

If we need to make up numbers, I will run. Otherwise I'll put my hand up for the ED role as and when that becomes available.
posted by coriolisdave at 4:33 PM on June 1 [4 favorites]

I'll put my hand up for the ED role

Electile Dysfunction thanks folks I'll be here all week
posted by phunniemee at 4:41 PM on June 1 [6 favorites]

chasles: "I am pleased to announce my candidacy for the board. I've been here quite a long time, have a lot of spouses etc.

Is this a typo? Why is having a lot of spouses a reason to vote for chasles?
posted by Vatnesine at 4:58 PM on June 1 [3 favorites]

2009: The Great Enspousening (wiki entry)
posted by nobody at 5:10 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]

Yep I plan on running.
posted by Diskeater at 5:41 PM on June 1 [2 favorites]

There has been discussion about how long terms should be. If you would run in the next election for only a one-year term, please favorite this comment.
posted by NotLost at 6:32 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]

There has been discussion about how long terms should be. If you would run in the next election for a term of two years, please favorite this comment.
posted by NotLost at 6:33 PM on June 1 [8 favorites]

There has been discussion about how long terms should be. If you would run in the next election for a term of three years, please favorite this comment.
posted by NotLost at 6:33 PM on June 1 [3 favorites]

I'd just like to point out that, at the moment I write this, all three of NotLost's poll comments have two favorites. Because Metafilter.
posted by JHarris at 7:54 PM on June 1 [2 favorites]

While I think two-year terms would be better, I'm voting for one-year terms right now because of how many volunteers have burned out in MeFi endeavors because processes have dragged on longer than anticipated or projects turned out to be more complicated than anticipated. Future boards can amend the bylaws to change the term, but for right now I think it makes sense to have one-year terms with board members being able to run again, so that we don't end up with large chunks of the board needing to be replaced in special elections or serving interim terms.
posted by lapis at 7:57 PM on June 1 [3 favorites]

For any candidates that would run for terms of two years or more: How would you prevent burnout, or life events needing you to step away from a board position?
posted by NotLost at 7:59 PM on June 1

JHarris: "I'd just like to point out that, at the moment I write this, all three of NotLost's poll comments have two favorites. Because Metafilter."

Well, in my case, it's because i faved them all; i think the questions are poorly-worded. I think staggered 2- or 3-year terms are the best idea in terms of continuity and governance, but i will run for a board term no matter how short or long it is.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:58 PM on June 1 [2 favorites]

It’s a different type of organization, but I’ll note that the .NET Foundation is working on increasing term lengths of their directors:

We are proposing to extend the term of directors from two years to three years. We have found that rapid turnover within the foundation has made it difficult to address longer-term issues and have a reasonable promotion of directors to leadership roles within the foundation. It's important that leadership roles are able to grow first observing in the foundation before taking on a leadership role and in turn advancing to a higher role. Having a three-year term affords the possibility of doing this within a single term.

posted by easy ice at 9:18 PM on June 1 [1 favorite]

i realize it isn't something that can simply be willed into reality but there needs to be a trans person on the board if possible. that would be very good for the site.
posted by secret about box at 10:43 PM on June 1 [9 favorites]

If I end up on the board by default, and no trans folk end up on the board, I’ll happily step down in favour of someone fitting that description.

Same goes for other underrepresented groups.
posted by coriolisdave at 11:27 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]

For any candidates...

I am not really thinking about term lengths because right now it's unimportant and abstract to me. My union local has their AGM in December and the Officers are elected to staggered two-year terms, Prez election even years, Vice-Prez odd, etc. and it seems to work. Draft Bylaw Article III.2 (Number, Qualifications, Election, and Term of Office) addresses elections and terms, but it's a work in progress. From my limited perspective, it's a very important part of the Bylaws that needs the most immediate discussion and revision and should be broken up into at least a couple of subsections rather than have four fairly important topics covered in a chunk.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:42 PM on June 1 [3 favorites]

I'm strongly considering running for the board. I'm a 20-year MetaFilter registered user (although I'm not at all one of the most consistently active), and I've watched this site develop over the years, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, in the last few years, more for the worse in many ways. I've also got experience from as far back as the 90s as a sysop on an old-school BBS, as well as participating in and moderating various online communities after that. I'm also a Norwegian citizen living for more than 25 years in Mexico City, but one who follows a fair amount of US politics, news, and culture, and has worked in US companies, so I feel I can bring a useful non-US perspective to the board, while still being in a US-compatible time zone and head space. I also have general project management and some specific software development experience.

My rough platform would be:

1. Improve moderation, mostly by lightening up on it, reducing vibes-based moderation, and focusing on actual, concrete rules violations, tracking moderator performance, and applying a lighter hand. We've seen too many valuable users buttoning over disagreements with bad mod decisions. Also, make the Moderation Oversight Committee, which I'm currently on, a standing committee with some authority. If elected, I would likely resign from the Moderation Oversight Committee, unless I could be convinced there would be some concrete value in me being on it and also a board member, but I think the two roles shouldn't be mixed. Put in place some sort of process and system of warnings before people are permabanned for minor offenses.

2. Make sure MetaFilter is welcoming to all, including, especially, LGBTQIA+ people and people of color. There's been some worrying patterns in site management's attitude towards these groups which I think have to be monitored and rectified.

3. Reach out to users who have buttoned or been banned for bad reasons and see how they can be brought back.

4. Actively pursue community-based moderation approaches, with the hope that this will reduce or eliminate the need for (as many) paid employees in this role, since it's a major part of the site's expenses.

5. Clarify the site's financials, and if no one on the board or available is able to get this done, then hire someone from the outside as a consultant to clean them up, and establish guidelines for how accounting should be done in the future.

6. Generally push for community governance, democracy, and transparency as much as possible. While there will always be processes and decisions that can not be 100% transparent because of things like security, legal risk, or the handling of users' personal information, I would generally like to see the user base have more input on how things are run, more recourse if the board or others in the site management make bad decisions, and more insight into how things are run and the site's health in general.

7. Take the opportunity of the site rewrite to enter into a process of continuous technical improvement. Kirkaracha has been doing great work, and we should build on that by allowing external volunteer contributors for fixing bugs and proposing new features, and also move the site gradually towards what contemporary users expect from a discussion site. Some of these changes may be contentious, and should only be done with the approval of the majority of the userbase, but what's great about this place is the community, not the details of the codebase, and there are many improvements that could be made.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:25 AM on June 2 [31 favorites]

Oh, just saw the comments about a trans person on the board, +1 to that, would definitely like to have a trans board member (or several).
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:26 AM on June 2 [1 favorite]

I declare my intention to absolutely, definitely, NOT run for the board. As much as I'd like to, I simply don't have the time. Maybe when I retire in a few years.

I do declare my intention to vote for each person who has declared their intent to nominate. Except for the 'sell FanFare and close MeTa guy'. I appreciate the intent, but, no.
posted by dg at 12:58 AM on June 2 [5 favorites]

That sounds like a great platform to me, Joakim Ziegler. I do hope that you run.
posted by Kwine at 5:48 AM on June 2 [6 favorites]

Now we have nine candidates.
posted by NotLost at 6:19 AM on June 2

This is supposed to be a declaration post and we have people arguing with others, jokes, rules debates, etc.

Please make the actual list of candidates clear and easy to read when voting comes.
posted by soelo at 7:35 AM on June 2 [2 favorites]

True, and we need focus, but this is preliminary and not official.
posted by NotLost at 8:38 AM on June 2 [2 favorites]

Vatnesine: "Is this a typo? Why is having a lot of spouses a reason to vote for chasles?"

This would help explain. sorry for the in joke reference.

Edited to say: holy crap. It's been 16 years!!!!
posted by chasles at 9:17 AM on June 2 [4 favorites]

Joakim Ziegler, that is an excellent platform and I really hope you do run.
posted by ssg at 9:45 AM on June 2 [3 favorites]

It’s interesting to me (in a good way) that I can say I’ve only been here for ~ten years, and have that be a valid reason for why I’m not getting in-jokes. What amazing deep roots this place has.
Also thanks for explaining.
posted by Vatnesine at 9:47 AM on June 2 [3 favorites]

- beans in a bowl, not a plate
- More MetaTalk, not less or none
- Create MetaThunderdome: All grar and shit-flinging; No deletions allowed
- Create MetaLottery threads where the Community can vote to permaband one member; Monthly?
- Bring back megathreads
- Membership fee now $5/month
- and finally , Tariffs !!!


No, not running
posted by banshee at 10:03 AM on June 2 [4 favorites]

Now we have nine candidates.

However, we still have not heard from Rhaomi, 1adam12 or Gorgik, the three members left from the ~10 (?) original volunteers for the interim unelected board about whether they consider themselves candidates for board seats. Are they assuming that their unelected positions will automatically be carried over onto any new elected board? We have no idea, but need to know as the community thinks about the final number of board seats that will be most ideal.

Once again, I ask the current interim unelected board to clarify this issue.

We also need to hear from the three current unelected board members whether they intend to use the power they gave themselves in the site Bylaws to appoint 3 members of any new elected* board - a power that was never discussed in MeTa, to my knowledge, and which is a huge presumption on their part that absolutely needs to be undone quickly, if the 3 unelected members do not say they'll forswear that power.

This is the perfect thread for the interim unelected board to clarify those two questions immediately.

(*mostly elected, if they do intend to wield that unearned power no one granted them)
posted by mediareport at 10:50 AM on June 2 [8 favorites]

For the 'power to appoint' thing: I vaguely recall something like that being discussed in the context of the previous elections, so for the steering committee. In the current situation, I agree that it sounds quite suspicious, but at the time it seemed like a reasonable approach to deal with the possibly lopsided result of just selecting the N people with the largest number of votes. Adding a few people specifically to balance the representation and/or skill set of the board as a whole could help to form a strong team.

As others have proposed, it does seem to make more sense for the newly-elected members to make the decisions here. Perhaps having the old board suggest up to three new board members whom the new board is free to accept or not ('veto' sounds too strong here) would work for both good faith and bad faith nominations? (For transparancy, I think both those nominations and the new board's decision should be public.)
posted by demi-octopus at 11:20 AM on June 2 [1 favorite]

Found it! It was Steering Committee Voting that worked that way, with the top 7 candidates voted in and up to 5 selected by the Transition Team (the outgoing board, so to speak).
posted by demi-octopus at 12:31 PM on June 2 [6 favorites]

Thanks for that history, demi-octopus. I do think we're now in a very different place when it comes to trust in those who'd be doing the appointing, and the three remaining members of the interim unelected board should absolutely *not* have given that power to themselves, particularly if they plan on automatically being part of the new board without standing for election themselves.

Once again, they could clarify all of this very quickly. Rhaomi, since you're participating here, why are you continuing to avoid answering these basic and intertwined questions?

1) Do you plan to automatically be part of the new board, or will you stand for election like the other candidates?
2) Will you agree to not use the power to appoint 3 new members of the elected board?
posted by mediareport at 12:51 PM on June 2 [9 favorites]

think it best if this thread can stay focused solely on declaration of intent to run.
posted by clavdivs at 1:06 PM on June 2 [5 favorites]

i think there is value in non-candidates saying what issues are important to them.
posted by secret about box at 1:12 PM on June 2 [1 favorite]

Shit, folks! You know things just got real if clavdivs is asking us to focus up now.
posted by snofoam at 1:16 PM on June 2 [15 favorites]

I don't think we can assume that the members of the interim board want to continue after an election. Just saying that is the Option C that seems to be overlooked.
posted by NotLost at 1:38 PM on June 2 [2 favorites]

I also am not running, but might in a few years after I retire, as well.

That said, I’m happy with the quality of the candidate pool we’re getting.

I’d especially want to see someone with finance/accounting savvy on the board. There are a lot of other important competencies, but that one and perhaps development — in the fundraising sense — are top priorities.
posted by darkstar at 1:40 PM on June 2 [6 favorites]

As a candidate, my priorities are:

Maximum transparency with the members.

Audit the existing practices and practices under the interim board (financial, employment, user data, governance, etc.) to ensure that the foundation is operating consistently with the community’s values and the laws and regulations it is subject to.

Draft and approve sane and simple bylaws that don’t include a point system for membership and do reflect the values and desires of the community, based on direct input and the views of the elected board members.

Hire someone in the ED role, or a hybrid ED/admin/moderation role.

Begin the process of carefully and respectfully winding down paid moderation or significantly reducing it so the site can be more financially sustainable.

If I am elected and the board does not agree to work on these things to some degree (they don’t have to be everyone’s top priorities), I will resign.
posted by snofoam at 5:23 PM on June 2 [21 favorites]

I am thinking about running simply because MetaFilter has been a friend and ally (and several spouses) to me through some really intense times as a human but my only real platform is support through cheerful kindness and the ability - I would hope - to provide sensible perspective.

The site can be a microcosm of issues played out more broadly in society, but my belief is - fundamentally - we're largely dealing with practical issues around the provision of consistent scaffolding to support a range of perspectives rather than building The One True MeFiTM so I may not have the requisite passion for change if that's what people think is needed.

Instead I can offer an interest in helping identify what's feasible and supporting the best use of available resources to build iterative improvement, honed through 15 years working on major digital projects in the public sector. That is all.
posted by freya_lamb at 7:21 PM on June 3 [10 favorites]

I encourage someone to run with a focus on finances, which could be any of clear and accurate reporting, budgeting, auditing, controls, fundraising, etc.
posted by NotLost at 9:14 PM on June 3 [4 favorites]

I'm happy to run if there are no other international members running.

My platform as such would be:

1. Make MetaFilter open, diverse, and international — actively build mechanisms and culture away from a US-centric echo chamber to include more voices

2. Use my bossiness and listmaking to keep people on track and set clear goals and deliverables. Sensible and pragmatic, the Singapore middle way.

3. Build clear, transparent systems — implement SOPs and documentation, set up multiple ways to communicate and agreed fair processes to consider edge cases. Create expectations of reasonable timelines and communication on all sides.

4. Support specialist committees — get the resources and structure needed to have financial, BIPOC, election and other special interest volunteers get their ideas and work into action

5. Create a culture that encourages people to participate and try again — foster a culture where people can contribute seasonally, try fun weird things, mess up and be able to grow from those mistakes (still no Nazis).
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 3:45 AM on June 4 [18 favorites]

More specifically, I would love to see a candidate with priorities similar to these:

1. Transparency and Communication – As a minimum, post a summary of board decisions within two weeks of each board meeting. Regularly read and respond in MeTas. Get a box for board member comments like the mods have. Change the “contributor” tag to “volunteer”. (Outside of MeTa, “contributor” generally means someone who makes financial contributions.)

2. Financial Reporting – Hire an accountant to ensure financial reporting is accurate, clear and timely.

3. Fundraising – Convene and give some help to a fundraising committee.

4. Bylaws – Convene and give some help to a bylaws committee. Consider using Loomio, a collaboration tool suggested by knucklebones.

The order of No. 3 and 4 could go either way.
posted by NotLost at 6:04 AM on June 4 [2 favorites]

things just got real if clavdivs is asking us to focus up now

clavdivs for tribune
posted by HearHere at 9:14 AM on June 4 [2 favorites]

tribvne?
posted by HearHere at 9:17 AM on June 4 [4 favorites]

Thoughts on community mediator

without hearing from the board about bylaws and other matters, I've actually been working on a roll for metafilter based on other people's input, perhaps a need for and this would be a mediation team.
we have a moderation committee and that is a great start for part of the role.
the roll would also be for advocacy for example if someone had a problem and did not want to go to the board or even moderation they would go to, my working title is, community mediator.
Tribune of the plebs is, like the United States government, a framework.
the mediator, for now, will not be eligible for running for the board nor any committee unless it is the mediation committee.
position would have no moderation power in fact very little power at all.
in various times through metafilters history there have been times when community has well, really disagreed with an owner's decision. this usually took place through a long thread and reaching some sort of consensus (,or not) and I have seen two previous owners backtrack on a decision because of popular nope.
Popular Nope.
I wonder what that is in Latin.
but on track to the thread,
I had thought of running for the board for the single purpose of serving on a mediation board. before I thought we should have a professional mediator but that would be very expensive. but I don't think it's fair to run for the board just for one seat that has not existed yet which I think technically would have to be voted on and placed into the bylaws. Do I have faith that we can handle most issues in house going forward. yes but not all.

example may suffice as to the action of a mediator of community.
let us say there is a very contentious issue, and perhaps someone laid out the problem and got two 300 favorites. whether or not that is consensus is beside the point.
and I do not discourage this type of asking but once asked and if nothing's changed then they go to the elected mediator and they would have one power and that's to put the brake, total stop on the measure that is unpopular to the community.
there would be a very concise method and approach to this as not to take up time.

mediator would also confer with moderation staff if there's a contentious issue with a member if need be. It would be this role to thoroughly examine comments and any other relevant data to either support or negate a board member or moderations decision.
This role would have adhere to strict confidentiality and a semblance of professionalism.
suffice it to say I have a lot of things written down. But it doesn't make it viable. it is potentially a lot of power and trust to place in one hand even if that person is on the committee. my initial historical objection would be the Tribune of the plebs, popular and influential role that was at times abused and created crises. I'm not popular nor influential so there's that.
HearHere, I would nominate you for the committee or the role because of your brevity and doing that concise thing.
I lost 20 minutes worth of work responding to your thread so I'm kind of calling you out.
it was good Linda Hutchinson postmodern stuff.

posted by clavdivs at 2:12 PM on June 4 [1 favorite]

The idea of a community mediator is promising, clavdivs.But maybe it would be better explored under a new board.
posted by NotLost at 8:46 PM on June 4 [1 favorite]

Agreed.

And while the urgency to elect a new Board is warranted, and the possibility of standing and ad hoc committees with enthusiastic member engagement is inspiring, at some point I think the community really needs to grapple with the reality that, when all is said and done, MetaFilter — in its current incarnation and scope — is a community weblog, and maybe shouldn’t really need dozens of people assigned to various leadership and service roles to support its basic functions.

But let’s have that discussion after we elect a permanent Board.
posted by darkstar at 9:36 PM on June 4 [8 favorites]

I'm declaring my interest in running, if only to make sure we have some representation from different perspectives on the site, mine primarily being Ask. Also out of genuine love for this place.
posted by DarlingBri at 12:27 PM on June 5 [7 favorites]

So, from brook horse’s comment upthread, we had seven candidates:

922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a
adrienneleigh
Previous username Jacen
chasles
Lenie Clarke
Diskeater
phunniemee

…plus seven more subsequently declared:

Alvy Ampersand (“I’ll probably run…”)
coriolisdave (“If we need to make up numbers.”)
Joakim Ziegler (“I’m strongly considering running for the board.”)
snofoam
freya lamb (“I am thinking about running…”)
dorothyisunderwood (“I am happy to run if there are no other international members running.”)
DarlingBri

Where a candidate expressed conditional interest or that they are not yet definitive, I’ve indicated that in this list. Candidates without text by their names appear to be definitive in their candidacy. Please correct me if I’ve mischaracterized or omitted any candidates.

That said, it appears that we have at least nine definitive and possibly as many as 14 total candidates for the Board so far. Anyone else?
posted by darkstar at 3:12 PM on June 6 [2 favorites]

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments