M.A.I.L. :: View topic - giving members more voice in BOD decisions

Mouth · Posted on Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:20 pm

i had an idea the other day about allowing the membership to weigh in on BOD votes.

simply, whenever the BOD makes an official vote a thread identical to the voting thread in the admin forum would go up in the KC. the threads would have hyperlinks leading to each other for easy reference.

the result of the vote would count as 1 or 2 BOD votes.

also, a sticky somewhere offering people the option of stating an opinion on where the 3.0 development is going. lotos has a thread like this regarding 2.5 in chat, but i don't want to hijack his area.. is this needed or useful to the membership?

there has been a lot of talk about how insulated the BOD seems to be from the membership.. in the past i have wanted to get membership polls for everything we did, but i later came to terms with the idea that the majority of the members just aren't concerned with minute details of how the site runs, they just want to look at/talk about chainmaille.

however, i would really like to see a dedicated place for those members who -are- interested in participating in discussions and decision making.

thoughts?

we

PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Articles Admin · Joined: January 21, 2004 Posts: 1020 Submissions: 26

Maybe put a sticky in the Knitting Circle/Chat/all forums where the general membership can comment on the current Admin topic. Then de-sticky it after it's voted on, and put up a new stickied thread when the next one comes along.

Of course, adding more voices to the chorus will make the already-slow decision-making process positively glacial. *headdesk*

-phong

Former_Gallery_Admin · Joined: August 23, 2004 Posts: 1491 Submissions: 0

I think the point Kim is trying to make Phong is that this is the memberships website, they really should get a vote in major decisions. It wouldn't slow things up as the votes would run together, the membership vote would simply count as one or two BOD votes on whatever the issue is.

The dialog for 3.0, the way I'm understanding it, is not to make more decisions necessarily on the final product, but to field any questions and clear up any confusion or points that some members may not understand.

Articles Admin · Joined: January 21, 2004 Posts: 1020 Submissions: 26

No, I understand what he's saying, but I think history has shown that even when the BOD gets to the voting stage, one or two people say that they're not clear on, or disagree with some point or other, and that leads to another week of discussion, rather than getting on with the vote itself. Letting the membership take part in the votes (which I'm perfectly fine with) will inevitably lead to more instances of confusion or misunderstanding that will need to be addressed, which will slow down the voting process even more.

I'm fine with members getting a voice, just commenting that it will slow the process.

-phong

Former_Gallery_Admin · Joined: August 23, 2004 Posts: 1491 Submissions: 0

I don't think I can recall that happening before when we've actually posted the vote, but I see what you're saying.

IMO something like what Kim is proposing will add only minimal time to any vote process, if any at all, and has the added bonus of including the membership more fully in decisions that affect the community as a whole.

Mouth · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:13 am

i like the idea of the members being able to put in a vote on new admins. they should have some sort of say in who is running their site.

things move so slow here, that adding an extra week or two is inconsequential..

kim

PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Cynake

Hrm. I have lots of scattered thoughts on the subject. More specifically on 3.0 concerns than general membership involvement.

If you look at our history, inability to give feedback hasn't ever been a problem. *Lack* of feedback has been the problem. BoD included. In short, no one cares. Those that do care, just want to pitch their two cents but not actually investigate the issue.

Also, anyone who cares, ends up on the BoD, simply by being a member who actually participates and puts more than superficial consideration to administrative issues.

Even as far back as, oh.. 6 years ago, before I was a BoD member, and I was suggesting improvements, apathy and disinterest had already been enough of a problem that when Drax and Aderamelach and I talked, we did it privately, so the general membership's eyes wouldn't glaze over when it came time to decide. We covered something like 80 pages of discussion privately first, so we could at least get something done without reexplaining the same things.

In my experience, taking things up to the membership for discussion involves only reexplaining the same things over and over again. Clearing up misconceptions. Covering the same reasoning.

You can give people 2 options. Read a summary, or read the details and reasoning behind a proposal. 99% of people are not interested in important discussion, so they skip the detailed explanation. They just want everything to be simple, summed up in a few sentences. But... they'll read that, and then start forming opinions on it and saying how things should be, or asking questions. Reasoning and explanations that were already written out exactly for that purpose, that they just never bothered to read.

Most people won't bother to inform themselves well about important decisions. If you ask for feedback, from most you'll get none. But put a poll in front of them, and suddenly they all have a fixed and informed enough opinion on the matter to try to influence the outcome. It's not very useful.

....

Two separate issues to me:

1 - General membership having a venue to give feedback.
2 - General membership having direct influence in the form of a vote.

#1 is important to me. That people always have a way to contribute if they want to. Frustrating, because people like talking a lot more than they like listening or learning. (Much as my posts go on forever, one couldn't really accuse me of not being well informed).

#2 is, I dunno, meh. That's why the BoD exists, so we can get stuff done. So that we can accomplish things in an expedient manner, and abstract a lot of the boring administrative tasks. This isn't a prestigious reward, it's mundane obligation.

Imagine any organization that, before people could decide anything, they had to take opinion polls. The BoD moves slow enough, and we're just normal people too, with plenty of apathy ourselves. Take however long it takes us to decide something, and multiply it by 10 if the membership get involved.

Anyone in the membership is free to open any topic for discussion. They also have provisions in the charter for enacting change. How many users that claim to want more venues for feedback have even bothered to read the charter? http://www.mailleartisans.org/management/charter.php <-- Hint, I bet this page just got 100 more hits, and a lot of people saying "There's a Charter?"

The users have far more influence over an issue than what Kim is proposing, by two methods:

1 - Talking. We all listen. We're not stupid. There is no Us vs. Them, when people talk about how they want things, it influence us. When people have good ideas, it influences us. Note that I and others got the header redesigned, a newbie page, and a 14-item list for infrastructure improvements approved by the membership, and then the BoD, as an *ordinary member*. Entirely as a grassroots movement. I joined the BoD *after* all that.

2 - Issue Polls forcing reviews. Nevermind getting 1 or 2 votes, the membership can outright overthrow a decision they don't agree with, or enact any changes they want.

... this is pretty significant. If the majority of the membership is really opposed to something the BoD is doing, and cares enough to say so, they should not just get 1 or 2 votes. They should be able to decide how things go. Who of us, if the majority of the membership was opposed (and informed), would not think twice about what we were doing?

There are other problems with letting the membership vote. I say this about once a year when it's raised. Our current membership represents our current policies. Bigger picture, we have to consider all the people who *would* participate if things were different. We have to listen to feedback outside the community. As BoD members, we pursue the mission statement of MAIL. Members are not accountable for such.

...

To the specific suggestion... I can't really think of any time that the combined membership getting 1 or 2 votes into a BOD poll could have made a difference. We're usually unanimously agreed. I think the largest variance I've seen is a 30/70 split. Not enough for 1 or 2 votes to make a difference.

So the net beneficial result of making the proposed changes would be mere theater anyway.

...

To the concern over MAIL 3.0. That's my department. I have fielded batches of questions on this 3 or 4 times a year for the last 5 years. It's starting to annoy me, in the sense that every time I have to reexplain it, it saps energy I would normally put into working on it. I have explained things in detail about once a year. I have to stop and correct people "No, it doesn't mean that". Twice a year I write summaries for people who won't read the threads I link, to past summaries. Which they then don't read.

People complain, but when I lay out options and ask for feedback to what would be better.. that's when whoever cared enough to complain walks away. Easy to criticize, a lot harder to participate in a solution. Most people won't even detail their reasoning. They just paratroop "This is bad" and then walk away.

There's no easy way out. Any summary I write, lacks details (by definition), and people misinterpret it. Anything I write in more detail so they won't misinterpret it, people won't bother to read. There appears to be no sweet spot.

Bottom line is that complex things do not have simple explanations. That's just how it is. Simple things have simple explanations, complex things have complex explanations. If you are dealing with a complex issue, you have to care enough to inform yourself.

...

To Phong's suggestion for sticky topics, I don't like it. It works for structured issues, but that's it.

...

To Kim's suggestion of a sticky detailing MAIL 3.0, okay, I can write one out again. But I know how it'll go. Either summary and confusion, or details and apathy. Same as it has the last 15-20 times.

One minor problem, is that I can't paint a perfect picture. A lot of it has to be figured out as it goes, and there will just have to be some faith that I have general competence with the manner, and if I'm not sure, that I'll ask for help.

Half the time DL and I have to chat for an hour or two before we can figure out minor details or even understand each other in terms of big picture. I can say with almost certainty that no one else cares enough to be that informed or to carry that many details in their head at the same time. *I* burn out trying to be thorough enough to make decisions. Who else cares to read all that crap and circular reasoning, rehashing, etc? I don't even care. I'm only doing it 'cause someone has to, in order to get it done.

...

The simplest thing is to just say "Wait until it's done, and then talk."

The ideas *came from* the membership, and we didn't need to be forced to ask them, we *wanted* to ask them, for feedback, many times. And did. And then wrote up the plan to move forward. In the last 3 years, the last ~10 times I've summarized/explained/etc.. I don't think one single new idea has even come up. No new concerns. No new reasoning. No new alternatives. No one has seen anything new (nothing's gotten done), so, there's nothing to give new feedback on.

I have pretty much bottomless capacity to address people's concerns, and, despite my frustration, I suppose it's the members rights to know. I realize most of our active membership wasn't around when it was first discussed. But, I'm really not keen on inviting more unnecessary discussion. Time I spend explaining it (like this post), is time that burns me out on the subject and time I would otherwise be interested spending getting stuff done.

If something about MAIL 3.0 concerns people, I could probably just tell them "Anything you've thought of has already been brought up 5 times, and addressed, and the plan altered accordingly."

Bleh. This is even more discombobulated than normal for me.

...

I'll write something up to paint the picture of 3.0 again. And maybe include a little bit about how it will progress.

Cynake · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:19 am

Also, so people who skimmed the above post actually read this...

A member suggested to me a while ago that we could appoint a regular member as a "liason" between BoD and general membership. I told them I'd bring it up next time member feedback/influence came up.

The idea is that people who don't know who to go to, to address their concerns, at least have a figurehead to approach. That person would then, I dunno, send that feedback up to the BoD.

I guess some people would be more comfortable having 1 person to approach, and have them work out who it should get to. And someone "on their side" I guess.

I'm not a fan, because it perpetuates the BoD versus Membership nonsense, almost presumes it must be true, but, maybe worth bringing up anyway.

Mouth · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:00 am

in regards to the 3.0 summary... why not simply necro one of those threads you've posted in the past with all the links and such, rename it and sticky it? saves you a lot of time. if someone asks a question that has already been addressed, simply reply, "please inform yourself by reading the relevant threads linked to in the first post." ...or something slightly less snarky.

yes, we do have a lot of members who were not active when we first began discussing this. they have a right to have easy access to what we are planning.

as to a BOD liason, that is sort of how i view myself. i am already dubbed "mouth" so i might as well have some useful function here as an admin other than flippy-flap.

in regards to the membership having a say on BOD votes.. i am not saying poll the membership before we vote, but post a vote simultaneously. it will probably not affect the vote one way or the other, but we will have a better idea of membership sentiment regarding various issues. this is important to me. as it is, we mostly find out how people feel about our decisions after they have been made.

kim

PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Cynake · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:19 am

Website Admin and Coder · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:27 am

Articles Admin · Joined: January 21, 2004 Posts: 1020 Submissions: 26

Or girl.

-phong, emphatically volunteers to not be that person.

Mouth · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:52 am

i will have net access for most of 2010.. i'll be living in a treehouse in alaska, with wifi. it's the internet age.

i have been debating getting internet access at home, when i get back from alaska.. the price is getting more affordable.. it dropped form 60 a month to 35 a month..

re membership feedback. i'd like to see a thread stickied somewhere for the membership to give us feedback in. i was not thinking the voting threads would be the sole source of feedback. i would like to see the membership be able to participate if they are so inclined.

re: examples of what we might want membership sentiment on.

multilingual submissions. (they are the ones using the submissions.) yes, we talk about it in a publicly visible forum. but if a member wants to participate in the conversation they have to PM a BOD member and have them copypasta the message in here. that has happened relatively recently.. DL posted it, iirc. i forget exactly which thread this happened in.

this is not a convenient way for the membership to communicate with us.

kim

PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Cynake

Mouth · Posted on Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:21 am

a sticky in requests would satisfy me, in that regard.

kim

PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.