Favorite this comment if you think anyone should be able to vote in the board election if they have a current account.
posted by NotLost at 7:01 PM on June 16 [44 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you think people should be able to vote in the board election only if they have had an account for at least 30 days.
posted by NotLost at 7:01 PM on June 16 [248 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you prefer that the board have fewer than seven members.
posted by NotLost at 7:01 PM on June 16 [23 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you prefer that the board have seven members.
posted by NotLost at 7:02 PM on June 16 [158 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you prefer that the board have nine members.
posted by NotLost at 7:02 PM on June 16 [46 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you prefer that the board have more than nine members.
posted by NotLost at 7:02 PM on June 16 [9 favorites]

Perhaps Brandon could be prevailed upon to add this post to the alert bar, as he has done in the recent past for election-related posts?
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:06 PM on June 16 [2 favorites]

Note that for our purposes, we are planning that members of the interim board would stay on the permanent board only if they are elected to a board position.

Could you maybe put that up as a polling option as well, as this assumption seems to carry some unspoken risks with it?
posted by mittens at 7:23 PM on June 16 [1 favorite]

I'll do it, but the assumption likely informs votes on the options above. New questions might make things more messy.
posted by NotLost at 7:27 PM on June 16 [1 favorite]

Favorite this comment if you prefer that current members of the interim board would need to run for election to keep their seats.
posted by NotLost at 7:28 PM on June 16 [190 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you think current members of the interim board should keep their seats and serve on the board for additional time, corresponding to the term as any newly elected members of the MeFiCoFo board.

(If anyone has better wording, please go for it.)
posted by NotLost at 7:31 PM on June 16 [20 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you think one random member should be elected to the board by lottery.
posted by vrakatar at 7:57 PM on June 16 [23 favorites]

I used the contact form to ask for this thread to be added to the site banner.
posted by NotLost at 7:57 PM on June 16 [3 favorites]

But what if I want to bookmark these comments?!
posted by aws17576 at 8:00 PM on June 16 [8 favorites]

I think that the board should be of a minimum size so that it has enough skills directly on the board for the board to be effective. I think that the larger the board, the harder it will be to get internal alignment (exponentially so), especially right at the start, and the slower the board will operate.

Not having board experience, I haven't personally the foggiest idea how many people that might be. I think this issue is best decided by people who DO have such relevant experience, and then explained to the rest of us. There were some great discussions by more informed people on a recent thread somewhere.

If anyone thinks that my analysis here reminds them of my recent exhortations to think about "what good would look like" or "what would characterise a good outcome", before thinking about "what implementation might achieve those aims", you'd be correct. We can't decide implementation details by popular vote, especially without first aligning on what outcome we're trying to achieve with our implementation.

How much knowledge transfer from existing board members will be necessary to get new members up to speed, despite a general desire to run a new board differently? Is overlapping terms the most effective way to achieve that? I don't know, and nobody here who doesn't have relevant/analogous experience knows either. In particular I think that any particularly experienced prospective board members are likely to have an opinion on this, and I'd be inclined to put a great deal of weight on that opinion.

I leave applying the "what good looks like" principle to voting restrictions as an exercise for the reader.
posted by quacks like a duck at 10:19 PM on June 16 [13 favorites]

I realise that that last message sounds like a massive WOMP on the lovely people who are actually putting the effort in to make sure this all happens effectively.

I'm sorry about that! It's fantastic that people are willing to push this along, and my intention is absolutely to constructively critique the efforts, from the perspective of wanting this process to be the best it can possibly be. I have no desire to crap on the exact people who are DOING STUFF instead of (for example) sitting back and heckling (like me). I don't mean to stop the process in its tracks and make anyone get discouraged and not want to contribute.

I think you're all fab, and I hope the combined efforts produce a resolution everyone here can be proud of. I'm sorry I didn't write my previous comment optimally to reflect this perspective. And I'm sorry I don't have spare capacity to actively contribute myself instead of heckling.
posted by quacks like a duck at 2:44 AM on June 17 [6 favorites]

quacks like a duck, as one of those people, thanks for your comment. I appreciate that kind of thoughtful constructive criticism and I hope people will post more of their thoughts to inform our efforts.
posted by joannemerriam at 4:34 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you think current members of the interim board should keep their seats and serve on the board for additional time, corresponding to the term as any newly elected members of the MeFiCoFo board.

I am not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is important to create continuity on the board, through things like staggered terms, so I hope there isn't a single length of term for newly elected members of the board.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:48 AM on June 17 [8 favorites]

How much knowledge transfer from existing board members will be necessary to get new members up to speed, despite a general desire to run a new board differently?

This was the impetus for my question above, really, because I was surprised by the assumption there wouldn't be some sort of staggered terms to allow new board members to ease in to what they need to know.

When I asked, a few threads back, what board members actually do--what they need to know, what experience they needed to have--the basic answer I got was that boards differ, they're all unique in their own way...and that gave me pause, especially when combined with the number of times a committee has been formed, has looked into details of the site, and been surprised at the tangles of complexity involved.

There's certainly an argument that anyone who wants to be on the board should run in a fair election, and that we should let the site decide who runs it, but elections are emotional things, it's easy to see a scenario where enough people are like "kick the bums out!"...which leaves the site in danger. This isn't like the government where we've got some sort of deep backbench of bureaucrats holding all the knowledge.
posted by mittens at 5:58 AM on June 17 [11 favorites]

I think it is important to create continuity on the board, through things like staggered terms, so I hope there isn't a single length of term for newly elected members of the board.

The current bylaws are set up for all one-year terms. The current bylaws do not provide for any automatic carryover of any board members.
posted by NotLost at 6:05 AM on June 17 [3 favorites]

This isn't like the government where we've got some sort of deep backbench of bureaucrats holding all the knowledge.

I’ve been having the same thought, so seeing you articulate it so clearly had me nodding like a crazy person at the bus stop.

I think in my perfect world, our next step would be a constitutional convention rather than an election. We haven’t yet come to any kind of consensus about what it means for us to be community-run — as this attempt to squeeze a democratic election into the margins of our bylaws highlights — and I’m worried that this will be a stone in the shoe of whoever takes the helm next. I don’t want to derail this thread, so I’ll leave it here for now.
posted by eirias at 6:26 AM on June 17

We haven’t yet come to any kind of consensus about what it means for us to be community-run

That discussion does have value. But maybe it could run concurrently with the election process. I wish the governance thread had not been shut down. I think it was parallel with the election process. Neither needed to be in the way of the other.
posted by NotLost at 6:31 AM on June 17 [2 favorites]

Also, relating to continuity, my personal opinion, not that of the election committee, is that having a larger board allows for more continuity. That is, there is a greater chance that any of the current board members would be re-elected, and it makes it easier to handle attrition. But there are pros and cons.
posted by NotLost at 6:34 AM on June 17 [7 favorites]

And a larger board also allows for more of various types of diversity.
posted by NotLost at 6:50 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]

I think there should be an expectation that outgoing officers, especially, meet with incoming board members and officers, especially, for knowledge transfer, and that meeting minutes be kept, and be public, to create a record of decisions made. Knowledge transfer doesn't have to require staggered terms.
posted by lapis at 7:51 AM on June 17 [7 favorites]

2nding the larger board for attrition-proofing. It may seem ridiculous to have 9 or even 12 people on a board for a zany lil website, but losing 2 members over the course of the year is quite likely, 4 possible, and before you know it mice are nibbling at your quorum requirements. Regarding terms, candidates could stand with the understanding that it's a max two years/min one year obligation, or prior to election declare what term they would be willing to serve for to get the staggered thing going and then elected board could then ratify that in the by-laws.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:55 AM on June 17 [6 favorites]

Favoriting comments as a polling mechanism is confusing at best.
posted by mecran01 at 8:23 AM on June 17 [7 favorites]

This is aggressive campaigning under the guise of something else. The urgency isn't even real yet it is the main focus. A 30 day cutoff either way is a blatant attempt at dismissing the concept of qualified voting, like there's any difference between two weeks and four weeks on a forum as old as this one.
posted by Brian B. at 8:27 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]

It’s not an election, it’s an opinion poll
posted by Pre-Taped Call In Show at 8:32 AM on June 17 [7 favorites]

Brian B., please clarify what you would like to see.
posted by NotLost at 8:44 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]

Perhaps these issues have been discussed elsewhere, but I didn't see them in trig's list linked above:

--- How long will voting last? Given that many users only visit the site infrequently, perhaps 30 days makes sense?
--- Is there a minimum percentage of active users that should be required before the voting is considered complete?
--- How will users be informed that voting has started? Perhaps for an event as important as this, a single-time popup is appropriate?
posted by gwint at 8:48 AM on June 17 [4 favorites]

Big thanks to the election committee for taking this on.
posted by Diskeater at 9:05 AM on June 17 [15 favorites]

Brian B., please clarify what you would like to see.

Civility. The "interim" board was a regrettable name for a legitimate board, and any new board before rules are established is just as interim as the last one. This shouldn't be interpreted to mean we rush into the rules-making to capitalize on the election urgency laid down over several days. It all looks suspicious. But more directly to your question, the site/board should stake or represent those who make FPPs or sidebar selections. They are committed to creation, not chaos.
posted by Brian B. at 9:37 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]

Brian B.: "Brian B., please clarify what you would like to see.

Civility."

My eyes are rolling so hard I’m amazed they’re still in my head.
posted by bluloo at 9:51 AM on June 17 [11 favorites]

Brian B.: "Civility"

lol
posted by phunniemee at 10:19 AM on June 17 [5 favorites]

Brian B.: "This is aggressive campaigning under the guise of something else. The urgency isn't even real yet it is the main focus. A 30 day cutoff either way is a blatant attempt at dismissing the concept of qualified voting, like there's any difference between two weeks and four weeks on a forum as old as this one."

I assumed zero days versus 30 days was really an extrapolation of no date of creation requirement versus some yet to be determined specific of date of creation requirement. It even took me a moment to understand how the poll worked, tbh, so definitely leaning into informal poll.
posted by Atreides at 10:47 AM on June 17 [1 favorite]

The urgency isn't even real yet it is the main focus.

this is an organization with a quarter million dollar budget that relies on member goodwill donations. if people giving that money do not trust it is stewarded by leadership they support, that seems fairly urgent. this is a bullshit house of cards, yes, but it is a very expensive one, so it’s a bit disingenuous to claim the concern and urgency aren’t meaningful. like this is not a multi year grant funding operation!
posted by sickos haha yes dot jpg at 11:16 AM on June 17 [7 favorites]

Amusingly, I was in the minority for all of those polling questions.

I support keeping as many of the three current Board members on as we can, for the reasons given above -- I know people have... feelings about the work they've done to date, but set that to the side and we still need to have some continuity if it's at all possible. Otherwise the new Board will be having to sort through everything themselves, possibly with the assistance of staff but regardless that would be a lot.

I also support a nine-member board. IME serving on vestries (Episcopal church boards) where typically there are nine members, it's a workable size and I would expect at least one or two people to need to step down mid-term due to Life Stuff and whatnot. These have been parishes which are roughly equivalent in budget and FTE staff to Metafilter, as well as a fairly equivalent set of expectations around Board transparency and accountability to the larger membership. Note also that... six? of the nine? transitional team (or one of those groups) ended up leaving, with only three remaining. So... yeah. Better larger than smaller IMO.

Additionally, I would expect the Board's workload to be significantly higher as well for the first year, as they will need to do a lot of triaging around priorities, work to rebuild community trust, work on cleaning up the bylaws, get the financial situation figured out and build transparency into that process... that is plenty of work for nine volunteers to do, even if ultimately it's decided that fewer are needed long-term.

Possibly there could even be nine elected Board members plus the interims staying on as non-voting members and agreeing to contribute some amount of time to wrapping up their part of the transition work.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:10 PM on June 17 [7 favorites]

Tivalasvegas's comment makes me realize that some of the answers/preferences might be dependent on the answers to other questions. That is, people might prefer a seven-member board if the current board members have to run for re-election, but a nine-member board if they automatically get a seat.

I assume the committee is using this polling as a temperature check and not as a deciding vote, but it would be worth considering that when you're looking at the results.
posted by lapis at 12:17 PM on June 17 [7 favorites]

(It strikes me that the people most vociferously pushing to oust the current boardmembers are precisely those who would be most dismayed at having Loup as the only remaining point of administrative continuity.)
posted by nobody at 12:52 PM on June 17 [2 favorites]

Favorite this comment if you think current members of the interim board should keep their seats and serve on the board for additional time, corresponding to the term as any newly elected members of the MeFiCoFo board.

I don't know if staggered terms are a thing that will apply to any elections yet, but one option seemingly not covered is to have existing board be grandfathered in for continuity's sake but be in the first group to rotate out (so, not quite "as any newly elected members") to ensure the freshness of blood. Yes. blood
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 1:07 PM on June 17 [5 favorites]

(It strikes me that the people most vociferously pushing to oust the current boardmembers are precisely those who would be most dismayed at having Loup as the only remaining point of administrative continuity.)

I think the framing of this is a little off. I have probably one of the least favorable views of the IB, but if they got elected, and I think they would, then they should serve. I don't think they should be able to nominate themselves (or anyone) directly to the elected board. I think that there should be an election ASAP, but that isn't "ousting" anyone, it's just getting on with having an elected board. If I don't want to oust the current board members, I'm not sure anyone does. Also, they could provide administrative continuity without being on the board. The whole foundation structure is likely to include a number of volunteer committees.
posted by snofoam at 2:28 PM on June 17 [5 favorites]

In terms of continuity, one thing many boards of directors do is have a three-year transition for the president, where you get elected and becoming the President-Elect, which is a post you hold for a year. Then you become the President for a year. Then you spend a year as the Past-President. All of these are voting positions, and there's a great deal of mentoring and continuity involved.

However, the organizations that I know that use this structure have thousands of professional members and budgets in the tens or hundreds of millions. It's probably overkill for a board to run a discussion board.

But mentioning it for the ideas it might spark.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:37 PM on June 17 [7 favorites]

> It's probably overkill for a board to run a discussion board.

over the last N weeks there has been a whole lot of overkill for a small discussion board

we ain't even in beans territory anymore
posted by secret about box at 2:50 PM on June 17 [6 favorites]

I think interim board members should be allowed to run for the board, if they want to. They’re not being ousted, the interim board is being dissolved and the permanent board elected.

Also, one-year terms doesn’t mean that everyone is on the board for one year. Presumably people will want to run/serve for multiple terms. If someone steps down early, we can have another election for their seat. I have served and currently serve on public boards and sometimes the way the turnover shakes out is a little inconvenient, but the work being done is frankly not all that complicated (on those boards or this one) and there will be no dearth of people with institutional knowledge of the site if needed.
posted by night traveler at 3:09 PM on June 17 [4 favorites]

In terms of continuity, one thing many boards of directors do is have a three-year transition for the president, where you get elected and becoming the President-Elect, which is a post you hold for a year. Then you become the President for a year. Then you spend a year as the Past-President. All of these are voting positions, and there's a great deal of mentoring and continuity involved.

I like this a lot, but I think for a nonprofit like this it probably makes sense for us to elect the board, and then for the newly elected board to select which among them will hold which officer seats (Pres., Treas., Sec.), to ensure the officers have the general support of at least half the board. (This is how the current and draft bylaws both have things, and it's also how I've seen small organizations do it.) But would both of those ideas mesh together or not?
posted by nobody at 3:30 PM on June 17 [3 favorites]

so it’s a bit disingenuous to claim the concern and urgency aren’t meaningful

It’s not that actually holding the election is urgent, it’s that establishing a concrete path to and timeline for an election is a high priority because currently the timeline is “who knows? Maybe never!”
posted by atoxyl at 5:26 PM on June 17 [9 favorites]

But what if I want to bookmark these comments?!

put a post it on the screen
posted by Sebmojo at 6:57 PM on June 17 [4 favorites]

that's a great idea.... let's try it... can't see a goddamn thing on mobile, do they make a smaller post it, can I use a chiclet wrapper.
posted by clavdivs at 8:27 PM on June 17 [2 favorites]

If you mail me your post-it I can resize it for you.
posted by nobody at 8:44 PM on June 17 [6 favorites]

do they make a smaller post it

page markers [post-it.com]
posted by HearHere at 3:14 AM on June 18

I think interim board members should be allowed to run for the board, if they want to.

I agree! I bet they will even get a lot of votes.
posted by grouse at 8:38 AM on June 18 [3 favorites]

The committee is meeting Sunday, June 22. I expect to give you all an update within two weeks.
posted by NotLost at 8:28 PM on June 20 [8 favorites]

We met today and I volunteered to write up a more detailed update of what we're thinking about by mid-week, to take some of the burden off NotLost.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:01 AM on June 22 [5 favorites]

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