<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"/>
</head><body style="">
<div>
Thanks for the reply Ben. Replies below.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
>>On September 25, 2013 at 10:29 AM Ben Brown <ben@generik.ca> wrote:
<br/>
<br/> >>Yikes. Do you actually have that many members show up for a board meeting? Do you hold separate general member meetings for all the pertinent stuff separately or do you >>cram it all into those?
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
We typically have about 8 to ten board members show. The size is another issue. As for other meetings, we have committees where the real work is supposed to be done, with Board meetings intended for high level decisions/strategy.
<br/>
<br/> >>We welcome members (and occasionally, the public) to sit in on board meetings, but usually only a handful attend (we have about 55 members including the 7 on the board). >>Openness and transparency is important to us as well, so long as member's privacy isn't violated. Because of that, we don't normally name members who are behind on dues >>unless there's a suspension on the table (which would be announced publicly anyway), for instance.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Agreed with that. For instance, it's my opinion that new Board nominees should be temporarily excused from the meeting while the Board deliberates on their eligibility. Still trying to get that going...
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
You also bring up a good point. Concern was expressed by some Board members that merely opening meetings, and even just announcing them publicly, will lead to a mob attending. I think that's unrealistic.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
General question to list: has anyone with an open policy had a problem with "unwelcome" attendees?
<br/>
<br/> >>If your concern is members are being left out because of physical space constraints, what about streaming your meetings online via webcam and using IRC to conduct >>business with remote participants? If there are times that meetings need to be face-to-face (depending on your bylaws), limit the frequency of them and try and find a larger >>space to use for those.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
We are in agreement on taking advantage of technology. We're just not there yet. My preference would be to open all Board meetings to broadcast by default, but again there is some disagreement there.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
My concern is that the general community is disenfranchised by a default tendency of leadership to act in private, especially without followup release of proceedings. I'm just surprised to be fought on this and wondered if I'm actually in the wrong.
<br/>
<br/> >>Chaotic meetings can be smoothed out by a powerful meeting chair. However, controlling a meeting of 180+ attendees would be a massive undertaking for anyone.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Absolutely agreed, and it's frustrated me that our Board's conversation keeps circling back to that when it's sheer common sense. However, I'm put in mind of stockholder meetings... is it unrealistic to think a once-a-year large assembly is a good idea to consider?
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Thanks,
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Randy
<br/>
<br/> >>Cheers,
<br/> >>Ben (Kwartzlab Makerspace)
<br/>
<br/>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
On 9/25/2013 11:11 AM, Randall G. Arnold wrote:
</div>
<div>
Greetings all,
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
A little over a year ago I got the ball rolling on a Maker community for my area. As we've grown and developed guidance and governance (we have established a nonprofit foundation for Makerspace facilitation, managed by a board of around 12) we've run into the usual potholes and fences. Unfortunately the sticky ones are personal and political.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In particular, my philosophy is to start every endeavor, every Board meeting with the *default* attribute of openness/transparency and only restrict general member attendance when absolutely necessary (security, venue limitations, etc). Caveat being that attendance != participation. It's a given that you can't cram 170 general members into a 12 ft x 12 ft room, nor should Board meetings be spectacles. But when assemblies are restricted for whatever reason, it's my belief that proceedings be made fully available to the general membership.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
However I've been met with some resistance on the very subject of openness. Based on some push back, I feel out of place in the very organization I started. After years of involvement in open source communities, I have strong feelings on the subject but I'm willing to listen to opinions from all directions.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
What I'd like to ask everyone on this list is: what are YOUR thoughts on this topic? And can anyone point me toward policy that supports or even argues against my beliefs?
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Thanks,
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Randall (Randy) Arnold
<br/> founder/director, Tarrant Makers
</div>
<br/>
<br/>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</div>
<div>
<br/>
</div>
<div id="ox-signature">
Randall (Randy) Arnold
<br/>Developer and Enthusiast Advocate
<br/>http://texrat.net
<br/>+18177396806
</div>
</body></html>