Uncharacteristically, I have something to say. Unfortunately, it is basically just a less articulate riff on what Nathan said, so stop reading if you don't like "me too" posts.<br><br>Michael proposes a direct-democracy system whereby some matters that would otherwise be dealt with by the Board are instead put to the entire membership. I'd prefer we didn't move towards such a direct democracy approach. While I don't have the time, interest, or technical knowledge to vote on many issues -- even "significant" issues -- facing HCoop, I can muster the energy to take a passing interest during Board elections. If "significant" issues started coming up for full-membership votes, I suspect some members (such as myself) who didn't have sufficient time, interest, or technical knowledge to inform themselves about the matter would simply abstain. That doesn't necessarily mean I don't have *some* interest in the outcome. I'd just rather delegate all of my annual "votes" to a subset of the membership that seems trustworthy/skilled/interested/intelligent (
i.e. my choices in the Board election).<br><br>Of course, if my choices in the Board election aren't elected, then my "votes" are effectively wasted for that year. But given the non-zero costs involved in participating in full-membership votes, that's a risk I'm willing to take. I just don't think I would be in a position to make a better informed decision than an elected Board member, and I prefer making an annual "somewhat informed" vote to more regular "not informed" votes. I also think this "less interested member" phenomenon will become more common as HCoop grows. Of course, an argument might be made that if I can't bother to take an interest in a "significant" issue facing the co-op, then I have given up any interest in affecting the outcome.
<br><br>I have some concerns about whether "significant" is a workable standard, although Michael does a good job giving examples of the kinds of issues that would require a full-membership vote. I also don't think employment or admin-related issues are appropriately addressed by the full membership. These sorts of HR matters, by their very nature, require you to meet with people and often discuss issues confidentially. Likewise, many financial decisions require specialized knowledge and detailed understanding of the available courses of action. I'd prefer that a few Board members invest significant time in understanding the issues, and then make an informed decision in the best interests of the group.
<br><br>Ultimately, any unwanted, dramatic changes by the Board to the structure or functioning of HCoopBoard could, as Nathan proposes, be dealt with by an amendment to the Bylaws using the residual power of the membership. The bottom line is, I think most HCoop members are here because we want relatively cheap, robust, and/or flexible web hosting, and the decisions with respect to how that is accomplished (even the "significant" decisions) are best left to the Board. I think we have to trust that the Board we elect won't take the organization off the rails on the proverbial Crazy Train.
<br><br>As for the original proposed changes, I have no problem with the Board membership being increased. Five seems appropriate. The staggered multi-year terms approach also seems like a good idea.<br><br>Take care, and happy 2008,
<br>Dane<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 27, 2007 1:20 AM, Nathan Kennedy <<a href="mailto:ntk@hcoop.net">ntk@hcoop.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> I'm not against this more involved model where it works, I'm just not<br>> convinced this is good to enshrine too heavily in our type of<br>> organization. As you point out trying to make a fine line between
<br>> operational decisions that do not require "member approval" and those<br>> policy decisions that do, invites "squeaky" members to challenge every<br>> single action that the board takes on the basis that it should be put to
<br>> member vote.<br>><br>> Also, as has been obvious, the great majority of members do not WANT to be<br>> deeply involved with decision-making. That's why we have a board that is<br>> supposed to be popularly elected to do this extra work. It is not clear
<br>> that results that are better and more in accordance with the membership's<br>> wishes will result, if more decisions are ratified by some small, noisier<br>> segment of the membership that has the time and interest to weigh in on
<br>> them.<br><br></div>Here I am already replying to myself, but just to make this point clear,<br>consider that if a member wants to be deeply involved in policy decisions,<br>then he or she should run for the board. If that member does not win a
<br>board election, then by definition that member is someone whom most<br>members think they would rather not be making policies than those who DO<br>win the board election. Therefore it is likely that any small group of
<br>members voting against mundane policy decisions of the board are often<br>actually voting AGAINST the will of the broader membership that voted to<br>delegate these decisions to the board.<br><br>Also, I did not mention but I *do* think it would be a good idea to
<br>include precatory language in the bylaws indicating that the board's<br>decisions should be made in consultation with the membership. That's what<br>we have the mailing lists and other communication channels for. It
<br>already says that board meetings are to be open to the public and minutes<br>published.<br><br>-ntk<br><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>HCoop-Discuss mailing list
<br><a href="mailto:HCoop-Discuss@lists.hcoop.net">HCoop-Discuss@lists.hcoop.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss</a><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br>