-
Please can you read through and vote on the following proposition for changes to the board structure by clicking here.
I'm on the board for a non-profit that runs the everyday business of a photographic darkroom. It's IRL because it's "in real life", in the "meat space" (ie not cyber space). We're an association in the linguistic sense, but an enterprise in the legal sense. Swedish corporate law is a bit fuzzy when it comes to non-profits.
My experience of being of a board that there are lot of practical things that pop up out of nowhere that needs to be dealt with. Having more people to deal with it and sharing their experiences is big benefit for the operations.
I know the troubles of finding people that are engaged and wants to commit to the cause. But I also know that cutting down the positions to a bare minimum isn't the answer. Merging two of the positions into one, say "Director of Policies and Guidelines" and "Public Relations Liaison" or let the Vice President do Public Relations is a better option.
Also, Thank You for being one of the founders. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for one of your videos.
As long as you're feel it's enough and you don't hesitate to ask for help so others can jump in it seems fine to me.
Having now served on 2 boards I can understand the "red tape" and/or participation issues getting many people to respond in a timely manner.
Personally, when it works, I think a few more "voices" make better decisions (provide more points of view) but I understand how difficult it is to get full participation.
Probably not for this thread, but since I am retired, I would be happy to volunteer time to helping the site if you have specific needs.
Thanks,
David
Personally, when it works, I think a few more "voices" make better decisions (provide more points of view) but I understand how difficult it is to get full participation.
Probably not for this thread, but since I am retired, I would be happy to volunteer time to helping the site if you have specific needs.
Thanks,
David
I'm rather leaning towards 'no', but mostly because it feels like a move to fix the wrong problem. The direction really needs to be about encouraging and strengthening participation, and it's hard to see how slimming the 'management' team like this would do that.
In fact I also think the roles are poorly thought, because as you slim down the management team in an organisation, it becomes increasingly crucial that the roles you have left are defined with clearly and specifically targeted responsibilities, so that everyone knows exactly who has what job, and who to go to with a question or issue.
Thus, what you really need more than nebulous and fairly meaningless titles (in a team of just 3, you certainly don't need to use 2 as 'president' and 'vice president') is something more like: Chairperson/CEO (overall and day-to-day coordination, setting agendas, and chairing meetings etc), Operations Manager (managing the infrastructure, web and discord services, overseeing mod and admin teams), and Business Manager (oversight of finances, staff and member recruitment, record keeping).
As I have previously, I'd add one other to the 'management' team; a non-voting member who can input into discussion and report back to the membership, but doesn't have a vote - an observer, basically. Personally, I think this role is increasingly important as the 'management' team shrinks, with concomitant risk of too much power condensing into the hands of one or two people who might misuse it without oversight or broader debate.
That isn't to imply that our current board members are in any way like that, but I suspect we all know of someone who took charge of a busy web service with all the best intentions, and then gradually closed off any means by which he/she could be subsequently challenged.
(Apologies, this is poorly expressed, but I'm having a difficult 'motor control' day, so typing is laborious - hopefully the above makes sense).
In fact I also think the roles are poorly thought, because as you slim down the management team in an organisation, it becomes increasingly crucial that the roles you have left are defined with clearly and specifically targeted responsibilities, so that everyone knows exactly who has what job, and who to go to with a question or issue.
Thus, what you really need more than nebulous and fairly meaningless titles (in a team of just 3, you certainly don't need to use 2 as 'president' and 'vice president') is something more like: Chairperson/CEO (overall and day-to-day coordination, setting agendas, and chairing meetings etc), Operations Manager (managing the infrastructure, web and discord services, overseeing mod and admin teams), and Business Manager (oversight of finances, staff and member recruitment, record keeping).
As I have previously, I'd add one other to the 'management' team; a non-voting member who can input into discussion and report back to the membership, but doesn't have a vote - an observer, basically. Personally, I think this role is increasingly important as the 'management' team shrinks, with concomitant risk of too much power condensing into the hands of one or two people who might misuse it without oversight or broader debate.
That isn't to imply that our current board members are in any way like that, but I suspect we all know of someone who took charge of a busy web service with all the best intentions, and then gradually closed off any means by which he/she could be subsequently challenged.
(Apologies, this is poorly expressed, but I'm having a difficult 'motor control' day, so typing is laborious - hopefully the above makes sense).
I have always sought to play that role as an Admin. I have contributed thoughts and ideas to the Board whenever appropriate since the day of our founding. Yet, I am not elected to the Board itself. I feel that all Admins really do have the obligation, not simply myself alone.
I think it is truly fantastic many of you are making time to express your thoughts and even voicing your willingness to serve the forum in some capacity. That is greatly needed to ensure this forum will be around long after the founders and current board are gone.
I certainly trust our board and their intentions as only being the best for everyone. I would however like to see/hear a more granular argument from our board as to why they deem the reduction necessary or beneficial. I believe I understand the rationale behind the proposition but as is evident in this thread, we all are making stretches/assumptions to try and understand clearly & fully why our board is asking for this reduction. Im not asking for a book, just a list of the top 3 or 5 (if there are that many lol) reasons listed most impactful to least for the decision to bring this vote.
That may help folks to feel better about understanding board rationale, thus where to place their vote and could increase voter participation as we have more clear information to base our decision on.
That may help folks to feel better about understanding board rationale, thus where to place their vote and could increase voter participation as we have more clear information to base our decision on.
Last edited:
- There's not been anything for director of policies to do for 2 years, roughly. Any work at this point would be mostly minor.
- There's not been any need for a PR liason, the secretary fulfills that role for the most part.
- Moderators don't require a board directorship to function.
To supplement what @Kai Robinson just said, I'd like to add that I've lived in Japan since 1994, and I can tell you the single word that describes Japanese culture is this: RULES. It's all about spoken and unspoken rules, regulations, laws and a complex organizational structure that keeps society here largely running well, but at a cost to individual citizens. Many Japanese experience freedom from the endless rules and structure for the first time when they choose to live overseas. There are still rules and societal order in countries outside Japan, yet often on a lesser scale, resulting in a greater feeling of freedom. Those who prefer endless rules and structure eventually return to the security Japan's rules and structure offers. Those who prefer a greater degree of freedom (yes, at a cost, of course), often choose to remain outside Japan. I don't necessarily like all the rules and structure, but I've grown to accept it and is why I remain living here.
Those words I just wrote aren't speaking good or bad about Japan so much as it speaks about rules and order in a way that I personally have experienced for over 31 years. When you live in a society which pounds on the rules for that long, it's only natural you will ask how many rules are actually needed? How much structure is required for societal cohesion? How many leadership roles are needed to govern, and what powers and term limits must apply to them? What are all those rules and all that organizational structure trying to achieve, and can that be achieved with more rules and structure or less?
On a much smaller scale, those are the same sort of questions before us in this thread, which need to be considered in light of what Kai just said.
In the future, when the founders are no longer with us (in the land of the living) and when all existing board members which serve now are gone, it will be up to people from the community at that point in time to determine what is or isn't needed to govern this forum. There will be no influence from the original founders at all then. Even so, the community doesn't need to wait decades for that to happen, We've had board member elections since our Fall 2021 founding. Not may names were cast into the pot of candidates, and to be honest, there were not a tremendous number of votes cast for those vying for a board position. Indeed, in a more recent election, I felt compelled to seek out responsible people I personally knew from the community to ask them if they might consider running for a board seat. Most declined. Only one agreed, and he was elected to the board.
So in terms of what we need, I would say it is "participation." No participation means apathy. And when apathy takes hold, it won't bode well for this forum in general, just just in terms of its organizational structure.
I as one man cannot MAKE people want to be on the board or vote or donate or any of that. I can try. But I cannot force them to do that. This forum was created by people from the community who volunteered their time for the good of the community, and it must continue to be people from the community to keep this great forum alive, make new rules, creation new leadership positions, or even do the reverse and eliminate some rules and/or positions, as is partly the case now, and is the subject of this thread.
It's natural to fear change. It's natural to compare with other organizations and in so doing over-analyze. But at the end of the day, this change won't be etched in stone for all time. The board has members with limited terms and as new board members take over, they will hold votes and decide whether or not to re-evaluate past decisions. This is why I voted in support of what the board recommended in this thread, because I know it's not an eternal decision.
I don't think the debate about the decision of this vote will end, and that's okay. Indeed, I think it's a great "sign of life." Because if there was no debate, and if only a scant few people voted, it would be concerning. And on that topic, as of the time of this writing, only 69 people in total have voted. This forum has just over 3100 registered members, translating into a 2% voter turnout thus far.
Those words I just wrote aren't speaking good or bad about Japan so much as it speaks about rules and order in a way that I personally have experienced for over 31 years. When you live in a society which pounds on the rules for that long, it's only natural you will ask how many rules are actually needed? How much structure is required for societal cohesion? How many leadership roles are needed to govern, and what powers and term limits must apply to them? What are all those rules and all that organizational structure trying to achieve, and can that be achieved with more rules and structure or less?
On a much smaller scale, those are the same sort of questions before us in this thread, which need to be considered in light of what Kai just said.
In the future, when the founders are no longer with us (in the land of the living) and when all existing board members which serve now are gone, it will be up to people from the community at that point in time to determine what is or isn't needed to govern this forum. There will be no influence from the original founders at all then. Even so, the community doesn't need to wait decades for that to happen, We've had board member elections since our Fall 2021 founding. Not may names were cast into the pot of candidates, and to be honest, there were not a tremendous number of votes cast for those vying for a board position. Indeed, in a more recent election, I felt compelled to seek out responsible people I personally knew from the community to ask them if they might consider running for a board seat. Most declined. Only one agreed, and he was elected to the board.
So in terms of what we need, I would say it is "participation." No participation means apathy. And when apathy takes hold, it won't bode well for this forum in general, just just in terms of its organizational structure.
I as one man cannot MAKE people want to be on the board or vote or donate or any of that. I can try. But I cannot force them to do that. This forum was created by people from the community who volunteered their time for the good of the community, and it must continue to be people from the community to keep this great forum alive, make new rules, creation new leadership positions, or even do the reverse and eliminate some rules and/or positions, as is partly the case now, and is the subject of this thread.
It's natural to fear change. It's natural to compare with other organizations and in so doing over-analyze. But at the end of the day, this change won't be etched in stone for all time. The board has members with limited terms and as new board members take over, they will hold votes and decide whether or not to re-evaluate past decisions. This is why I voted in support of what the board recommended in this thread, because I know it's not an eternal decision.
I don't think the debate about the decision of this vote will end, and that's okay. Indeed, I think it's a great "sign of life." Because if there was no debate, and if only a scant few people voted, it would be concerning. And on that topic, as of the time of this writing, only 69 people in total have voted. This forum has just over 3100 registered members, translating into a 2% voter turnout thus far.