On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote:
Ah ha! You're suggesting a "Senate" to go with the "Representatives"!
Senates *are* good balances to the sometimes "mob rule" of
representative government, but maybe we could have two forms of
representative - one representing the constituents and one
representing
the organization?
Oh, no! I am a HUGE fan of the Constitution, and think bi-cameral
legislatures have their place, but I think that's an over-engineered
solution to our needs. I'd like a few fresh faces ("the House") and a
few of us grey-beards ("the Senate") serving on one board that
represents the needs and desires of the group, interests in trying
new projects, mixed with the wisdom of past successes and failures.
By "representing the organization", I mean like a representative
for the
organization's resources - so the maintainers of the mailing lists,
web
site, meeting rooms, chapters, sigs, ... have a voice.
That's interesting. I think that the "Activists" - those who actively
participate in the organization - have a greater sense of investment.
And deserve to have a voice. And whose contributions should obligate
us to listen. However, our ultimate goals should be to have everyone
participating. Mailing list maintainers, webmasters, TWiki tweakers,
chapter coordinators, SIG leaders, announcement writers, Librarians,
room schedulers, TaskMasters, meeting presenters, soda bringers, all
deserve a voice.
I wonder if those people are on the -org list? (Or have their eyes
glassed over with "yet another of the incorporation go-rounds") ;-)
I couldn't blame anyone for that.
Yes, but we don't have a good way of ensuring only one person gets a
vote. Actually, I think this was discussed on the general mailing some
time ago - I just can't find it.
Gee, we ought to tell our government how to do this. For now, I'll
bet we can circulate a sign-up sheet at meetings and (virtually)
online and find a volunteer to maintain the list and a committee to
review the votes and make the entire thing open and transparent and
auditable.
Hmmm. Of course, this means that we can't rely on the TWiki to provide
"accurate" answers!
With all due respect,.. nah. You're just baiting me here, aren't you
{g}?
That would be a good idea. But then we need a backup, ... If we can
create/find a technology solution, that would probably be best 'cause
then we wouldn't need another officer.
It's a task we assign to the list of elected volunteers that make up
the board, and they appoint a committee amongst themselves and with
any other willing volunteers.
(Our biggest problem is apathy, not activism!)
Agreed. So I propose we form the first interim board (until elections
in a year or two) with the chapter/SIG leads (or their designee) and
three At-Large members by unanimous acclaim at that meeting, and let
them (us) work out the details.
Another possibility is to have the chapter/sig chairs form a "senate",
and the constituent representatives form a "house". (But I've never
understood how conflicts between the two are resolved.)
It's real similar to the making of sausage, I suspect.
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
