Poll - Extending the term length of the board

[Androda]

Hello everyone, we in the current Board have a proposal for the community.
First, the proposal. And then the reasoning will follow:

* We would like to extend the length of the current Board's term to 3 years.

A more detailed post on reasoning from Kai will follow (Kai is ill right now, and his explanation might be posted by another Board member).

A TL;DR is:
It was harder than anticipated to transition to a new Board, get everyone up to speed, and maintain good communications between Board members. We would like to increase the Board Term Length to try and figure out how this transition should work for future Boards.

 

[Kai Robinson]

Hello all - as @Androda mentioned, I'd like to put a longer explanation across to you all.

This topic is not something we'd think would be raised, or in this case, seemingly needed.

TinkerDifferent was founded to be run by the tinkering/retro/hackerspace community that it served, to be welcoming to all and a genuinely nice place to shere your hobbies and enthusiasm with likeminded individuals, all while being transparent as much as possible.

We'd like to think that we've collectively done a good job at maintaining this ethos since our inception.

One of the things we instituted at the very start was having an elected board, with designated roles/specialities.

The elected members coming from anyone who wanted to stand - anyone who gets the votes from the community is then on the board.

For the first year of the board, this ended up being 1 year and 2 months, with the 2023 board coming into 'power' on the 1st of January 2023, for a term of a year.

However, this is where things start to come unstuck.

The first board was made of exclusively of founder members - we'd had a vested interest in TD from before there was even a name, we had a laser like focus on what we wanted, ideally, as the structure and the inner workings.

This is why the first year of the board went as well as it did - we were already acquainted with one another, knew our strengths, weaknesses and what was expected of us.

But this then became a problem for the board to follow, as you'll understand shortly.

As you may or may not know, TinkerDifferent's board structure has a limit on how many terms a person can serve, in order to mitigate the issue of 'perpetual kings'. After all, it's not OUR forum, it's YOUR forum, we want the membership to be involved in it's workings and to have a chance to hold the reins.

I was nominated after the successful elections to be the President of the Board for this year, having already served in the previous year as Director of Moderators.

After this term is complete, I cannot serve a role on the board until a minimum of one term has passed - for me, this is fine, i'll be happy to take a back seat and see where our successors take things.

The problem is, unfortunately, that the new board is made up mostly of non-founder members with myself and @Branchus taking a second term along with @eric and @fogWraith.

In amongst the idealism, it was envisioned as something akin to a relay race - with one team picking up the baton from where our predecessors left off...

Only, the team took the baton and rather than run with it, the team had to figure out what that baton was, why it was shaped like it was, what to do with it and who should take on the responsibility of handling the baton - and that's with several founder members and previous board members as well.

On top of that, while us as founders had put our heart and soul into it, burning the sometimes literal midnight oil to get TinkerDifferent into the world, there was never the same expectation of any non-founders coming in.

To be honest, the multi-time-zone nature of the board's makeup has proven to be hard to co-ordinate on a monthly basis.

Add to the the fact that more people need to take time out to do [insert life event here] and by the time this current board had managed to get any traction, it was already May/June.

It's taken a real, concerted last-minute push to get two things out the door, in addition to the regular running and maintenance.

In our unanimous view, we believe that a year is unrealistic as a term length for a board, at least if the board is to actually effect any meaningful change and not just keep the lights on.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 

[karrots]

Many boards I've seen or been familiar with don't replace the full board each year/term. It may be worth figuring out a way to stagger the board member terms. This would also help with the continuity issue. This would necessitate having 2 or 3 year terms. 2 seems a bit more reasonable but the ultimate term may depend on the board size and how many get swapped out per year.

 

[nucleogenic]

I think it's unrealistic to get fully up to speed in an established space and make all the contributions one hopes to in just a year. Replacing key people is hard work and a big overhead.

 

[Yoda]

While I applaud the idea of a site run by members for the sake of members, I seriously doubt it can be competently achieved with long term goals by such short term 'management', where objectives could change so frequently.

To me, 3 year terms of office would be a sensible alternative, though I would suggest one structural change in the board, and that is to introduce one 'non voting' member elected annually to observe and participate in discussions, specifically to help ensure that the longer term board members stay on track with community interests and focus.

 

[Stinkerton18]

I'm also in favor of longer terms, and supporting of the idea that it's not every position up each year but instead limited to 1 or 2 tops. As others stated, it helps ensure a more stable leadership with minimal impact from onboarding.

 

[JDW]

As you may or may not know, TinkerDifferent's board structure has a limit on how many terms a person can serve, in order to mitigate the issue of 'perpetual kings'. After all, it's not OUR forum, it's YOUR forum, we want the membership to be involved in it's workings and to have a chance to hold the reins.

I will not comment on whether I think 3-year terms or good or bad. But I must emphasize that Kai properly points out the major issue — No Perpetual Kings.

As one of the original founders, I can tell you that we designed terms to be 1-year because that seemed reasonable at the time, with the aim of preventing any founder from being a king forever, which is sadly true in many other forums. Such results in an endless stream of draconian rules, warning points used as weapons, shaming, brow beating, and the top-down sanctioning of gatekeeping and bullying. These are the horrors of forums that have perpetual kings -- not all, but many forums.

There are numerous benefits to a Monarchy. But the benefits come only when you have a good King. With a bad king, you are crushed by an iron fist until the passing of that king. Having seen what that can do in other forums, it was decided by our founders to prevent that from happening to TinkerDifferent.

My advice is to keep the community actively informed about what serving on the board means. I personally feel that means you must take the job seriously, almost as if it was your paid day-job, even though serving on TinkerDifferent's board is 100% volunteer and not paid. Yes, I truly do mean we should all take it THAT seriously. Anything less will cause you to be flippant and less concerned about the job. And when you have some people on the board who treat it as "optional" they will "opt-out" more often than not.

In other words, when you serve on the board, what you do then becomes "more than just a hobby."

That's because you have real world obligations to the forum and the community at large. People who don't wish to take the job seriously should never cast their name into the hat for selection.

With that said, some people will still cast their name into the election hat because some people sadly view the job as a badge of honor. No, I am not chastising anyone in particular here. I have no idea who is doing what on the board. I speak in general terms. But all of you must admit that people who seek a board position only for BRAGGING RIGHTS is a problem. That isn't a good thing.

Realistically, we must be prepared for such things to happen. That's why whenever someone is elected to the board, it would be best if a set of rules could govern them more strictly. No, not in an overbearing way that would remove all joy from the job, but just some basic rules to keep the board functioning and to prevent endless excuses from board members who don't want to do much.

Kai mentioned "passing the baton." Before anyone seeks to be on the board, the community needs to know more about the responsibilities (and joys) of taking that baton. Yes, there can be "on the job training" but there also needs to be "pre-election" training too.

I feel that anyone serving on the board who pretty much never attends meetings, never provides feedback, and basically who is largely unreachable, should at some point be removed from their post on the board, even if it is against their will. Board members would need to make that decision, of course. As to the details of what constitutes someone being derelict and worthy of removal is for the board to decide, unless the board wishes the community to make the decision on that. But the last thing the forum needs is a dysfunctional board of directors due to board members treating the job in a carefree and irresponsible way. This seems to be the reason why the new "3 year terms" are being proposed -- in the hope of keeping the board functioning well.

Yes, it is hard to coordinate meetings when you have board members scattered around the world. But that needs to be understood before casting one's name into the pot to be elected. It could be that at least one or two board members may not have an ideal time of day to attend the meeting, and yet, attendance is important. This is why board members need to be "dedicated" to the job. It's not 100% fun and games. But the upside is you don't have such meetings every day or even every week. Even if it is non-ideal for some due to time differences, meetings are infrequent enough so that should be manageable.

Some will say, "this is why other forums have the same people in there perpetually, because some people can handle it." But again, that means "perpetual kings." For better or for worse, TinkerDifferent is all about preventing a perpetual set of kings. It's harder, yes. But I personally believe it can be done. If it cannot, TinkerDifferent would then become like every other forum, and loose its core uniqueness and reason to exist.

To say it cannot be done without perpetual kings is to suggest the community is too lazy or inept to do the job, and I personally do not think such is the case. They just need to be told more about the job.

Let it also be know that I'm nobody special, but I served as a founder to kick-start the forum. I'm no genius. Most of you know that very well. But I did actively participate. Nobody ever asked, "where's James?" or "James is never here!" No! Nobody said that. That's because I gave it my all. And I gave it my all because I enjoyed it. Sometimes I disagreed with other founders, but that's okay. Because if you aren't passionate enough to voice strong opinions and disagree now and then, you probably aren't taking the job seriously enough. And yet, I'm nobody special. I am like most of you. Set your mind to a task, and you'll be surprised at what you can achieve! That's why I feel if somebody as normal as me can participate in managing a forum, so can any member of our community who determined and treats it as something very important, not "just a hobby."

I keep repeating the refrain "not a hobby" because there have been many times people have told me to take things less seriously because "it's just a hobby." And while that is true SOMETIMES, it is not true of serving on a board. It's also not true when you are selling something to the community. Imagine someone who takes your money for a product, and then they never deliver the goods, saying within their heart, "It's okay because it's just a hobby." No, my friends, that would be wrong. That would be theft.

So you see, there are times when this is more than just a hobby, and all board members should serve with that firm understanding. And I don't think that should scare anyone away from serving. If anything, it should only scare away those who would not serve diligently in the first place.

Lastly, we must consider that if we do increase the duration of terms to 3 years, it will be expected that people elected to the board serve with a serious attitude and ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE for all 3 years. That means it will be more of a commitment than a 1 year term. It could be that a serious and well-grounded person gets elected but then a year later finds the job to become too time-consuming in light of increasingly difficult day-job and family commitments. Could even be health issues that trigger a change. In light of that, I suspect that more people may be more inclined to submit their resignations if terms are extended to 3 years, versus the current 1 year.

I am not arguing for 1 year terms or against them. I am just pondering what-ifs. And so, if someone resigns, the board must decide to either live without that board seat until the next election, or call for a new election to replace that person.

I hope that what I have said stimulates this discussion. More people from our community really need to chime in. Currently there are only 7 of us talking about this important topic. We really do need more feedback than that.

TinkerDifferent is a great forum that I personally believe in. That is not saying it is the perfect forum with a perfect board and perfect people posting in it. It just means that we have something different, and it's not just our way to tinker! The structure of this forum is very special. I do hope the community can recognize that and pitch in to help keep it running smoothly, for many years to come. But in the end, this forum can only be as great as the people who support it.

Be great!

 

[Yoda]

I hope that what I have said stimulates this discussion. More people from our community really need to chime in. Currently there are only 7 of us talking about this important topic. We really do need more feedback than that.

The points you make about 'perpetual kings' are entirely valid, and I would bet we can all think of internet resources 'run' by such people, where self aggrandizement and many forms of bullying and favouritisms are common. But there is also human nature, where, to somewhat misquote another: one should never give power to those who want it.

Much of what you say is an argument to not even have a board to manage the site, since there will always be those who seek 'responsibility' for the sake of having authority, or who end up subverting good motives for less good ends. There are also those who are truly well meaning, but once elected, prove less competent or capable than one might wish.

These are the really good arguments for 1-year terms, since that limits the 'damage' that any one individual can do - though the reason I highlighted the above from your post is that if the community is not responsive to the debate in this thread, it is also not likely to be responsive to competitive nominations/elections for board members either, so 1-year terms really may not be the best way to resolve that problem anyway.

The downside of single year terms of office are that firstly, to be viable, the community must be participatory, otherwise only those who want the power will seek it. So you get perpetual kings anyway, and the community accept it because we don't want to make the effort it takes to fix it, and in any case we can always go elsewhere. Secondly, single-year terms mean potentially frequent lurches in direction and a lack of continuity in policies and management, even site structure. Thirdly, if the community is minded to participate, there becomes a risk of perpetual election cycles, where administering the site becomes more important to many than the site's actual purpose.

The relative sparsity of contributions to this thread so far suggests that the community does not have a particularly notable concern about the issue, which you can realistically assume to mean we don't really see a problem, either with how it is going right now, or what seems likely to follow a change in election cycles. Given the site is (to my mind) very well run and broadly welcoming, that ought not to be a surprise.

It is also a good argument for 3-year terms, because if the elected board are doing a good job now, it seems less needful to upset the apple cart every year, with the concomitant risk of a new member of the board actually worsening policy or functioning rather than maintaining or improving it.

I also feel it should be said that the number of people participating in the thread is not merely those who have commented as we have, but also those who voted. Those (currently 43) voices are every bit as important as our words. What they say is that there is a high degree of trust in the board, and perhaps also that what the community want more than anything is to get on with the job of tinkering rather than administrating. Having created and run sites like this - albeit not computing - in the past, I tended to find volunteers to manage the resulting resources while I stepped back to be an ordinary user for the self-same reason.

To me, if 'the board' feel there is better continuity to be had with longer terms of office, then I think they are more likely to know than I am. Certainly they may all be power crazed and unworthy of our trust, but in fact don't show any signs of it that I can tell, and an elected board of several members would tend to create checks and balances against this anyway.

In the end, it is the very existence of an election cycle at all which mitigates against the perpetual king. Encouraging participation in those elections in ways that hold board members clearly responsible for the work they do is more important than holding frequent elections, which (to my mind) tend to devalue the process somewhat, and thus not actually deter the creation of a perpetual king anyway.

 

[Androda]

As a pre-emptive statement, I am a member of the current (2023) Board of Directors but not speaking in any official capacity for the Board as a whole. My opinions as posted here are mine and mine alone, and so on.

Generally speaking, my opinion is that the members of this forum are here because they see it as a place which is at least reasonably well operated. Their core concerns are that moderation is handled tactfully, their forum data is treated with respect and not subject to random data loss, and that policies and procedures are stable.

I believe they have little interest in how the Board is handled other than preserving these core concerns with the forum as a whole.

Stability should be the #1 goal for the Board.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Perpetual kings is a valid concern. That is why I proposed here that multi year terms are not centered around one position, rather all of them. This builds a real wheelhouse for engaged folks to understand the process and be efficient while in it. True, I did also advocate for no cap on term limits. This is a pragmatic choice driven by an understanding of the idealistic virtues of a community board vs the reality of how they operate in a community and what could be described as community apathy or a lack of candidates to fill short terms. In reality I believe it is better described as "life" ; true some folks just want to be along for the ride but for many life happens and are not capable of serving on a board which limits the amount of candidates available. So no term limits maximizes the ability for experienced past board members to recycle through the system if they want to.

A longer term builds skillset, growing efficiency & understanding & experience while removing term limits at least up front allows for a very limited pool of folks in a very small community to re-enter the board should they choose/want to. It is an acceptable compromise IMO between rigid ideals set forth from a bad experience and the pragmatic needs of a new but small community.

My thoughts on it anyhow.

 

[JDW]

The relative sparsity of contributions to this thread so far suggests that the community does not have a particularly notable concern about the issue...

I don't mean to upset anyone, but I've long been concerned about Discord stealing the attention of the younger generation of participants away from the main forum.

I don't like Discord. All posts there go into a black hole that's never indexed by Google. Now consider well that most people Google when they have trouble. Google shows them threads by TinkerDifferent (in the open forum, not Discord), the 68kMLA and other places. People then click those links, read those threads, and often find solutions to their problems. Discord doesn't help those people at all.

Another reason I dislike Discord is because you get lost in the discussion. You post something and then a bunch of other people talk over what you are saying, and after a while, what you said gets watered-down or completely lost in the mix.

Discord is a chatty form of communication which lends itself to people talking about various things that they otherwise wouldn't say in the open forum, leading people into more off topic discussions that further convolute an important topic.

And when you have chatty forms of communication, you tend to post a sentence of two, but that's it. Multiple paragraphs? No. People tend not to do that on Discord. And that's why a multi-paragraph forum post (which are common and important) wouldn't really work on Discord.

When you try to search for past discussions, you really can't find what you are looking for in a single block of text. You have to jump around all over the place, skipping past irrelevant info posted by others in the middle of what was being said.

We used Discord in the founding days prior to the first board, in the summer of 2021, and it was okay for that. But as a replacement for a forum? No, absolutely not. If it was a replacement, we'd have only Discord and this forum wouldn't exist.

What has me concerned is that we encourage people to visit the Discord by way of a stand-out advertisement on the top page of this forum, and I feel that probably steers a lot of Gen-Z folks to Discord instead of this forum. I know for a fact Gen-Z thinks different than my Gen-X because whenever I post something longer than a couple sentences, I'll get a Gen-Z who says I am writing War & Peace.

Consider this screenshot I made just now...

154 members on Discord!

Now consider this info, also on the top page...

So I am not merely guessing about the sheer number of people choosing Discord over the main forum.

The reason I mention this is because I want to see this FORUM succeed, and I worry that Discord is siphoning off people who would otherwise participate (and therefore find important threads like this one) if Discord wasn't available.

No doubt some will vehemently disagree with me on this, and the people who put a Discord button the top page may even be upset with me (although I don't know who those people are, other than to say the board made that decision, and again, I am NOT bashing them), but it is a living reality that must be considered. To those of you who like Discord, I am not bashing you. I am talking strictly about how great this "FORUM" is (not Discord) and what steps need to be taken to see it thrive in the long haul. A tug-of-war with Discord seems to hinder the success of the main forum in the long run.

 

[Fizzbinn]

I don't mean to upset anyone, but I've long been concerned about Discord stealing the attention of the younger generation of participants away from the main forum.

I don't like Discord. All posts there go into a black hole that's never indexed by Google. Now consider well that most people Google when they have trouble. Google shows them threads by TinkerDifferent (in the open forum, not Discord), the 68kMLA and other places. People then click those links, read those threads, and often find solutions to their problems. Discord doesn't help those people at all.

Another reason I dislike Discord is because you get lost in the discussion. You post something and then a bunch of other people talk over what you are saying, and after a while, what you said gets watered-down or completely lost in the mix.

Discord is a chatty form of communication which lends itself to people talking about various things that they otherwise wouldn't say in the open forum, leading people into more off topic discussions that further convolute an important topic.

And when you have chatty forms of communication, you tend to post a sentence of two, but that's it. Multiple paragraphs? No. People tend not to do that on Discord. And that's why a multi-paragraph forum post (which are common and important) wouldn't really work on Discord.

When you try to search for past discussions, you really can't find what you are looking for in a single block of text. You have to jump around all over the place, skipping past irrelevant info posted by others in the middle of what was being said.

We used Discord in the founding days prior to the first board, in the summer of 2021, and it was okay for that. But as a replacement for a forum? No, absolutely not. If it was a replacement, we'd have only Discord and this forum wouldn't exist.

What has me concerned is that we encourage people to visit the Discord by way of a stand-out advertisement on the top page of this forum, and I feel that probably steers a lot of Gen-Z folks to Discord instead of this forum. I know for a fact Gen-Z thinks different than my Gen-X because whenever I post something longer than a couple sentences, I'll get a Gen-Z who says I am writing War & Peace.

Consider this screenshot I made just now...

View attachment 14551

154 members on Discord!

Now consider this info, also on the top page...

View attachment 14552

So I am not merely guessing about the sheer number of people choosing Discord over the main forum.

The reason I mention this is because I want to see this FORUM succeed, and I worry that Discord is siphoning off people who would otherwise participate (and therefore find important threads like this one) if Discord wasn't available.

No doubt some will vehemently disagree with me on this, and the people who put a Discord button the top page may even be upset with me (although I don't know who those people are, other than to say the board made that decision, and again, I am NOT bashing them), but it is a living reality that must be considered. To those of you who like Discord, I am not bashing you. I am talking strictly about how great this "FORUM" is (not Discord) and what steps need to be taken to see it thrive in the long haul. A tug-of-war with Discord seems to hinder the success of the main forum in the long run.

I don't necessarily disagree but isn't this a truly separate issue from the "Extending the term length of the board" topic of this thread? Perhaps a new thread under Feedback?

 

[JDW]

I don't necessarily disagree but isn't this a truly separate issue from the "Extending the term length of the board" topic of this thread? Perhaps a new thread under Feedback?

Separate issue? Not really that separate, no. Why? Because it relates to "keeping this forum going in the long term" just as much as term lengths do. Therefore, I felt it important and not too off topic to mention here. My mention is not intended to spark debate here, which would lead us off topic, but instead to point out the importance of getting people to even see this thread and participate in it. For truly, if a majority of our visitors immediately jump to Discord, do those folks even know about or care about this important thread? I was addressing that problem. But the primary reason I wrote that is because I replying to something Yoda said which got me thinking. And because I am not Gen-Z, my thoughts tend exceed 2 sentences.

Getting us 100% back on topic though...

What are your specific thoughts on 1 year vs. 3 year terms?

 

[Fizzbinn]

I'm also in favor of longer terms, and supporting of the idea that it's not every position up each year but instead limited to 1 or 2 tops. As others stated, it helps ensure a more stable leadership with minimal impact from onboarding.

I voted for longer terms (up to 3 years) but I do think it is really important that the terms for the board positions are not aligned/co-termed. It may make it harder to transition to but the benefit of overlapping terms seems clear to me when it comes to transition and knowledge transfer.

I spent a minute (literally) trying to find the number/title of board positions to try come up with an example proposal but couldn't find the listing (30s from posting someone will point me to it! ...in an obvious place) but hopefully the board could come up with an acceptable plan for existing position terms to end now, after another 1 and/or 2 years and not all of them just being extended from 1 to 3 years (all portions up for re-election 2 years from now).

 

[Fizzbinn]

Separate issue? Not really that separate, no. Why? Because it relates to "keeping this forum going in the long term" just as much as term lengths do. Therefore, I felt it important and not too off topic to mention here. My mention is not intended to spark debate here, which would lead us off topic, but instead to point out the importance of getting people to even see this thread and participate in it. For truly, if a majority of our visitors immediately jump to Discord, do those folks even know about or care about this important thread? I was addressing that problem. But the primary reason I wrote that is because I replying to something Yoda said which got me thinking. And because I am not Gen-Z, my thoughts tend exceed 2 sentences.

Getting us 100% back on topic though...

What are your specific thoughts on 1 year vs. 3 year terms?

If your intention was to ask/post about the question of "Extending the term length of the board" on discord then I get what you are saying. I haven't looked to see if anyone has done that (guessing not).

I definitely get your point about about Thinker Different Discord syphoning off posts/content from the Thinker Different forum proper. As I understand it that's why "the other" forum refused create a Discord instance (and I think the founders (all/some?) of this forum must have disagreed with that decision?). I can see both arguments but again I think that would be an interesting topic for another thread.

 

[RetroViator]

I voted for longer terms (up to 3 years) but I do think it is really important that the terms for the board positions are not aligned/co-termed. It may make it harder to transition to but the benefit of overlapping terms seems clear to me when it comes to transition and knowledge transfer.

I spent a minute (literally) trying to find the number/title of board positions to try come up with an example proposal but couldn't find the listing (30s from posting someone will point me to it! ...in an obvious place) but hopefully the board could come up with an acceptable plan for existing position terms to end now, after another 1 and/or 2 years and not all of them just being extended from 1 to 3 years (all portions up for re-election 2 years from now).

Staggered terms are critical if the board moves beyond one year (which I support). Perhaps there is a randomized way to assign staggered terms (i.e. drawing names out of a hat), to establish a sensible rotation. Relatedly, it’s quite common for officers to rotate in position up to the chair.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Relatedly, it’s quite common for officers to rotate in position up to the chair.

This is how effective elected boards are created imo - when elected to office, each year said board member cycles through the positions to President providing experience and understanding of each and their part within the functionality of the board.

Electing folks for one year as “position X” and that’s it makes no sense to me at all. Build a system that will grow & perpetuate knowledge and skill set within the board.

 

[eric]

This Discord discussion is definitely off topic - and illustrates that it really doesn't matter if it's discord or forum or whatever, off topic chat happens anywhere

I don't get the point at all though - it's not siphoning users - users who don't want to go on discord wont, users who don't want to go on the forum wont. Hounding people to post and document things on the forum wont work. It is what it is and we should just encourage people to participate where they want.

Replace discord with IRC in this discussion - do you have the same feelings? Discord is just a chat platform and people have been chatting online for decades - as well as posting to forums for decades.
---
Back to on topic -

I chuckle a bit at the "don't give power to those who want it" in this context - we want people to step up and help out and dedicate time to volunteering to make this community better. It's hard enough to get volunteers in real life situations. I'm just grateful for anyone who throws in their hat to try to make this a better place. Case in point - everyone who nominated themselves in 2023 was elected (sands the 4 entries made on the last day, but I still appreciate them putting their name out there)

1 Year is not enough to do anything meaningful, and 3 years staggered seems like a good compromise (maybe 4 so it's an election every 2 years, just a thought)

I'll also add there is no way I could take doing this as seriously as I take my day job, family, or IRL responsibilities. This _is_ a (fun) hobby. Turning it into a job ruins the fun and joy of it. Of course board members should attend meetings and take on responsibilities to better the forum in their capacities and if they can’t step aside, but I whole heartily disagree with making it a job. It's easy enough to burn out with your real job and IRL responsibilities.

Just my 2c - also It's great we can even have these discussion vs just taking whatever you get.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Perhaps the perception with Discord is that if it did not exist, those 100+ users would log into Tinker different forum thus our participation and pool of potential candidates for board would increase? which could impact how elections/terms/function is designed. That is how I connected the two anyhow.

Anyhow, I went the opposite way - I started primarily on Discord but did not care for the format, so unregistered and operate primarily here instead. With that being said, I think Discord is a good tool for casting a broader net, capturing younger generations and expanding TD brand recognition. I don't think of them necessarily as competitive in nature rather complimentary serving different preferences/populations.

I dont have an answer of how to fill that gap though and I agree that the discord fails outright as an easy to access archive. Perhaps its use and perceived value is more as a sort of real-time chat system. While I can see a certain amount of competition between the two in terms of syphoning users, I perceive the net gain to be positive where ideally I think the discord user documents what theyre talking about on the forum.

 

[Androda]

I am wondering to some degree what kind of things people are expecting the Board to be doing.

Tinker Different is a forum. Unless there are community needs, governing decisions to be made, problems to be addressed, or similar concerns, what is there for the Board to do? We're not trying to change the world, we want to provide stability and a good atmosphere for the users.

This year the Board has more prominently given people notice that there's a way to donate to fund TD operations (ko-fi), we ran the calendar contest, invited some additional moderators to help spread the load, and set up a merch store. That seems pretty reasonable to me, despite all the scheduling and coordination issues we've encountered.

The things we have struggled with most are as Kai mentioned, understanding the roles and even in my opinion the purpose of the Board itself. I still don't fully comprehend why a complicated political system was chosen for the operations of something as basic and even mundane as a forum. Certainly we wanted to avoid the abuses which occurred on what many people call "the other forum", but that abuse must be avoidable in ways that are simpler than this.

I also must point out that the Board-based system has its own dangers.

Consider a situation where people are voted in and decide they want to take the forum a totally different direction than the membership wants. What happens then? Who holds the Board accountable? Who can say no and actually stop them? What happens then could be the death of the forum. We need protections against this sort of thing.

So overall I would say that day to day operations of the forum have been as expected - mundane, standard tasks. But trying to think through policies that try to prevent what I see as inherent dangers in the system is not easy or straightforward.