Official Tinker Different Poll: Board Size Reduction

[Androda]

Hello everyone,​

The Tinker Different Board of Directors would like to put forth a question for a vote.​

Currently there are six positions on the Board of Directors, which are intended to be voted in from Forum membership on a schedule posted in the Board Governance Policy:

• President
• Vice President
• Secretary
• Director of Policies and Guidelines
• Director of Admins and Mods
• Public Relations Liaison

In addition, we have the Administrative Group which is the Treasurer (fogWraith) and Director of IT/Ops (eric) as permanent positions due to the sensitive nature of their roles and platform access.

If Tinker Different was a multinational corporation it would make sense to have this many people involved to keep up with everything. But right now Tinker Different is a forum and Discord server, and trying to get six people to serve as Board Members in addition to the two Admin Group members has been quite hard.

In the last two years, Tinker Different's policies have become much more formalized, and there have been effectively zero issues which would require the intervention of a Board member at all.

The Board of Directors would like to propose the following:​

• Decreasing the number of Board positions down to three: President, Vice President, and Secretary

These three individuals, along with the Admin Group members, would be responsible for forum steering and operations. None of the existing functions and responsibilities would be cut, rather they would be shared among a smaller group of people.

In this Poll there are two choices:​

• "Yes" to agree that cutting the number of Board Members to 3 is the right way forward
• "No" to signal support for the existing system

Either way, please feel free to leave a comment in the thread or message a Board Member to let us know what you think.

 

[Stinkerton18]

Yes, I do agree that a decrease is in positions is sound. The additional positions can be staffed at a later date easily enough with the current policies.

 

[Kai Robinson]

Yes, I do agree that a decrease is in positions is sound. The additional positions can be staffed at a later date easily enough with the current policies.

Exactly my feeling - we can always INCREASE if needed in the future, but for now - things just run along just fine with a small group. Finding people to stand for positions and take their time is a hard enough ask as it is.

 

[Mac84]

Yes, I think this makes sense and leaves open the possibility to increase (if needed) in the future.

 

[fxgogo]

Hi, I agree to reduce to 3 members on the board. Too much red tape and admin can be a stifler of community.
I did not realise tinker different was so formally organised. Is there a reason it is so? Not that I object, but curious when compared so many other vintage computing communities.

 

[Stinkerton18]

Hi, I agree to reduce to 3 members on the board. Too much red tape and admin can be a stifler of community.
I did not realise tinker different was so formally organised. Is there a reason it is so? Not that I object, but curious when compared so many other vintage computing communities.

I can answer that. It stems from an issue that's occurred in a couple other communities, some non-retro computing, where things like a conflict of personalities can cause significant damage to a community or lead to loss of some very important/critical information that really doesn't exist anywhere else. Things like a rogue admin/moderator removing someone's posts because they felt insulted, or a user getting banned for violating some unclear/arbitrary rule and having no clear recourse to appeal.

The processes we have in place are all designed to prevent that kind of abuse through multiple moderators and admins, with oversight and accountability, sound board procedures, site/server hosting best practices and backup procedures to protect against data loss due to software/hardware issues, etc. There's quite a few very useful guides and tips/tricks shared that are not always available elsewhere on the net, especially as companies like Apple/Microsoft/etc. purge old info/drivers/manuals/etc. off their servers.

 

[fxgogo]

I can answer that. It stems from an issue that's occurred in a couple other communities, some non-retro computing, where things like a conflict of personalities can cause significant damage to a community or lead to loss of some very important/critical information that really doesn't exist anywhere else. Things like a rogue admin/moderator removing someone's posts because they felt insulted, or a user getting banned for violating some unclear/arbitrary rule and having no clear recourse to appeal.

The processes we have in place are all designed to prevent that kind of abuse through multiple moderators and admins, with oversight and accountability, sound board procedures, site/server hosting best practices and backup procedures to protect against data loss due to software/hardware issues, etc. There's quite a few very useful guides and tips/tricks shared that are not always available elsewhere on the net, especially as companies like Apple/Microsoft/etc. purge old info/drivers/manuals/etc. off their servers.

That makes SOO much sense. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Trash80toG4]

Aye! 3+2=5 in the decision making process is a very workable number. We had a larger board of directors/officers at NYMUG back in the day (9?) with too many portfolios and I found it unwieldly in meetings.

 

[JDW]

As a founding member, I do not subscribe to the theory that the existing board is tantamount to "red tape," nor has the existing number of board members in any way hindered this forum. Could it? Well, anything is possible. Has it? No, having 6 board members plus our IT people has not hindered this forum. And that says a lot about the great people who have served on the board to date (everyday folks from the community), and speaks well of the policies they have enacted.

With that said, I fully understand the need to reduce the number of board members as mentioned in the opening post, and I have cast my vote just now of support of that reduction.

One of our founding goals in the summer of 2021 was to ensure this great forum has no single "king" wielding power on this forum. Forum policies currently in place, coupled with 3 board members will continue that founding commitment.

As such, there isn't really a sound reason to really vote No, I don't think. But let the voters voices be heard.

In the future, should the board see the need to add back people, there will no doubt be another election at that point in time for forum members to decide. And that's the great thing about this decision. It's not a permanent change necessarily.

I now wish to thank our board, and the outgoing board members for your time and effort in making this one of the best vintage computing forums out there. BIG THANK YOU!

 

[Volvo242GT]

As long as everyone continues to be active, I'm in favor of it. We all want to avoid what was happening over at the other forum, of course.

 

[Kai Robinson]

As long as everyone continues to be active, I'm in favor of it. We all want to avoid what was happening over at the other forum, of course.

We'll definitely stay active - the decisions we make are ultimately meant to keep this place afloat for the longest time. My term as president is up, so it'll be up to someone else to take the reins.

 

[ClassicHasClass]

take the reins.

May I say thank you for spelling "reins" correctly.

 

[eric]

I'll also add the mod team is quite mature and do a lot of the day to day managing of the forum/discord. We've only had a few cases where the mod team said the board should make a decision or update a policy - which is good. Forum is running "steady state" for a while now and I think three elected community members on the board with a backing of the mod team/admin/treasurer is a fine setup.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

I don’t care for the odd number. In the bylaws the director of admin/moderators is expected to cast a tie breaking vote in the case a tie occurs. With three board members this is not possible and creates a consolidation of power (two bms in, one by out) that is concerning. I propose that we reduce board seats to 3, the Dir. of AM continue the tie breaking seat and include the Director of Policies & Guidelines as the fourth vote.

Thoughts?

 

[This Does Not Compute]

I propose that we reduce board seats to 3, the Dir. of AM continue the tie breaking seat and include the Director of Policies & Guidelines as the fourth vote.

That would be 5 seats if we retain President, VP and Secretary roles in addition to those two. Or are you proposing that we eliminate some of those in favor of keeping Admins/Mods and Policies/Guidelines?

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Odd number boards are a prevailing board preference for the simple fact you can’t have a tie lol (so they’re expedient & efficient) however I have found when profit motive is not a consideration, an even# board was more cooperative, communicative and open to compromise simply to avoid tie votes. Yes, at times it took more time but the end result seemed to be an amicable one with broad support. That has been my anecdotal experience anyhow - as always ymmv.

My thought was to absorb the latter three positions votes into our two unelected operational team, have those be the 4th vote and the tie vote if needed as the fifth. P/VP/S can absorb the three director position wheel houses as I assume they would.

That’s what I was thinking anyhow, and I am in no way trying to hijack the thread or start another long protracted debate/discussion on this - rather communicate a successful board experience that was outside the prevailing odd# norm (board structure was P/VP/T/S, all voting with tie 5th vote an unelected operational 3rd party.)

Anyways, as the board proposed initially, I am in favor of a reduction to three member board for no other reason other than functionality and 100% attendance so discussion/votes can be had when required; everyone is on the same page.

Have a great weekend everyone

 

[JDW]

@Certificate of Excellence

I’m not on the board. I wasn’t elected to be on it. But I do not consider what you wrote in any way whatsoever hijacking this thread. In fact, I think it benefits this thread and really is necessary for a complete transparency.

 

[eric]

I get what you're saying (though I think we cant change the current resolution we're voting on now) - but maybe your idea could still work in a 3 person board (spitballing) for example: In the event of a split vote the admin group can either (by unanimous vote) cast a vote or abstain (if they don't want to be a part or don't want to take a side or can't be unanimous). It's kind of a "catch" for split vote and will force the board to do more consensus building. Not saying this is the best/right way but maybe a compromise approach to keep the board small and consensus driven.