No, I disagree. I'm on the board of a local IRL association.
Just curious, so please forgive me, but what is an "IRL association"?
All disagreement is welcome and is a part of the voting process. You make some valid points. But while I am not on the board, nor have I ever served on it to know precisely what the reasons are prompting this change (mention in the opening post), I can only say two things:
1. The formality of even having a Board of Directors was established to prevent our forum from every being run by a single person. So we basically came up with "no kings" before the US public did. And we had good reasons for avoiding a single person controlling this forum. But I don't believe the majority of forum founders intended to have such a complex level of formality that a large board would not be sustainable in the long term. That's also why the founders never pursued non-profit status for the forum either.
It very well could be that the good people elected to the board found it challenging to get a sufficient number of board members to attend every meeting.
There are some in our hobby who feel strongly that this is "only a hobby" and that "life can and does get in the way." I am of the personal opinion that if we sell something in this hobby or create an organization or entity (like a forum) that others rely on, then it becomes
more than a hobby in that those who run that thing really out to take it far more seriously than the average hobbyist. Again, some disagree with me on that, but that's okay. No two of us can agree on everything.
So I basically am reading your comments with deep consideration, while at the same time reflecting on what possibly could have prompted the desire to reduce the number of board members in the first place. And at the end of the day, this vote is basically asking the very community who elected the board members in the first place (who are all people FROM the community), if they approve of this reduction. Regardless of the negatives, that's what it boils down to.
2. I think a good number of people vote (not merely here, but in real life political elections) without thinking things completely through. And to be fair, voters don't always have all the facts to do that. If you have a look at the number of people in support of the reduction versus those who do not, we see it rather overwhelming in support of the reduction. But this could be due to voter's inherent trust in the decisions and recommendations of the board.
For example, I hold some shares of AAPL, and other stocks. At least once a year, there's usually a shareholder vote. When viewing the topics to vote on, I always see "Board Recommendations" on whether to vote Yes or No. In cases where I really don't know how to vote even after researching a given topic, I tend to vote with the Board's recommendation, in large part because the Board, Tim Cook and other executives at the company have done an incredible job in creating great products and in returning value to shareholders. So I think many voters may be voting based on the "board's recommendation" in large part because Tinker Different has served the community well over the years and listens to them. This forum really is a well oiled machine.
I do not write all this to shutdown your argument. I merely offer my thoughts based on what I myself am seeing now and have seen over time. I am one of the founders, but I defer to the board when it comes to the big decisions governing how things are run, including the board itself. That's why I voted Yes, despite the potential negatives.
