[HCoop-Discuss] Bylaws revision - increasing size of board, etc.

[Dane Bullerwell]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Take care, and happy 2008,
Dane

On Dec 27, 2007 1:20 AM, Nathan Kennedy <ntk at hcoop.net> wrote:

> > I'm not against this more involved model where it works, I'm just not
> > convinced this is good to enshrine too heavily in our type of
> > organization.  As you point out trying to make a fine line between
> > operational decisions that do not require "member approval" and those
> > policy decisions that do, invites "squeaky" members to challenge every
> > single action that the board takes on the basis that it should be put to
> > member vote.
> >
> > Also, as has been obvious, the great majority of members do not WANT to
> be
> > deeply involved with decision-making.  That's why we have a board that
> is
> > supposed to be popularly elected to do this extra work.  It is not clear
> > that results that are better and more in accordance with the
> membership's
> > wishes will result, if more decisions are ratified by some small,
> noisier
> > segment of the membership that has the time and interest to weigh in on
> > them.
>
> Here I am already replying to myself, but just to make this point clear,
> consider that if a member wants to be deeply involved in policy decisions,
> then he or she should run for the board.  If that member does not win a
> board election, then by definition that member is someone whom most
> members think they would rather not be making policies than those who DO
> win the board election.  Therefore it is likely that any small group of
> members voting against mundane policy decisions of the board are often
> actually voting AGAINST the will of the broader membership that voted to
> delegate these decisions to the board.
>
> Also, I did not mention but I *do* think it would be a good idea to
> include precatory language in the bylaws indicating that the board's
> decisions should be made in consultation with the membership.  That's what
> we have the mailing lists and other communication channels for.  It
> already says that board meetings are to be open to the public and minutes
> published.
>
> -ntk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HCoop-Discuss mailing list
> HCoop-Discuss at lists.hcoop.net
> https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hcoop.net/pipermail/hcoop-discuss/attachments/20071227/c10ebeb6/attachment.htm