I would like to make a motion to table revision and vote on bylaws until we do more thorough research and reevaluate what is needed.
I wish to propose a motion to table by-laws amendments next week and set a by-laws / governance meeting to convene in 3-6 months after the new board has had time to propose potential changes carefully with the collaboration of interested members.
I was itching to propose a bylaws amendment (really an appendix amendment, which could be changed more easily). However, I don’t feel confident that it will serve everyone unless we talk, think, and research things more. This would have been a simple clause to allow appointment of contingent “managers” or “deputy officers” to handle increasing workload (the COO job, especially, is often too much for one mere mortal).
I need more time to discuss my own inclinations with everyone, and to research more (I have spoken to friends in QueLab, Noisebridge, and non-hackerspace organizations). There are no easy, clear answers, and nothing works perfectly.
Here are some observations, though (not saying these are necessarily bylaws issues):
Some of the duties of leaders and wardens have become too great for one volunteer to handle alone; the COO position, especially, has become a LOT of work. We should think about delegating responsibility in new ways which not only ease our burdens, but reward members who take on responsibility. People shouldn’t be expected to take on crap work without recognition or reward; this only leads to burn out or even hurt feelings.
If membership grows, turns over quickly, or includes many members who cannot be present is our current quorum quota too high, too low? I honestly don’t know, but we could simply look at how it works out next week carefully and assess. Voting by proxy?
When Hive13 was smaller, officers needed to do double duty on the board as well as in officer positions. This is no longer the case. How can these two bodies work together and independently?
This last one is a bummer, and I’m happy we haven’t needed it badly, but: disciplinary procedures. There are fair ways to handle difficult situations, and they do happen. I’d rather have an impartial, fair procedural framework when this eventuality comes to pass. Sorry to burst bubbles, but problems happen, and we should think about this.
The above are my observations, not proposals nor positions. Simply concerns. I wouldn’t presume to know how to solve any of these concerns myself. So:
1.) To table motions to amend the primary bylaws till a later date set by #2
2.) Establish a by-laws and governance amendment meeting 3-6 months after this current election. This meeting shall be called by the board, and the board is charged to responsibly investigate and cogently present any changes (if needed) in collaboration with the membership.
Yes, another meeting is a pain, but Daniel is not the only one who has voiced concerns about our organizational structure – he simply has the guts to speak up loudly. I have heard many more whispers than shouts, though, and we should pay attention to all. I think we should take the time needed to move prudently.