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

[Michael Potter]

On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 12:31 -0700, Dane Bullerwell wrote:
> 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. 

I didn't propose direct democracy because it's unworkable in a group
this size. That's why I called my suggestion a 'lobby.'

> 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).

This is why I also proposed having these type of votes at election time,
when people are more likely to pay attention. 


> 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. 

Maybe so. 

Michael