Board elections timeline March 1, 2025 12:28 PM Subscribe
When will elections for permanent board members for the MetaFilter Community Foundation take place?
Three months ago, we heard that it "will soon be time for members of our community to run for the Board of Directors".
I appreciate the temporary board members stepping up and no doubt doing a lot of work behind the scenes to set up MeFiCoFo for long-term success. Right now, MetaFilter might be heading for significant financial troubles or it might be totally fine, depending if one goes by the posted financials or assurances from the mods and board. It doesn't seem to be currently possible for members to get concrete answers about the financial state of the organization.
We've also seen a lot of mistrust and conflict between mods and members, especially in MetaTalk. There has been many months of frustration about the apparent inability to move forward with simple changes, like the proposed moderation log. We have a BIPOC Advisory Board that apparently meets, but minutes haven't been posted for a year and no one is really sure what they do (other than an odd post about rice cookers that apparently wasn't approved by the board). The new site has been almost ready for testing for the last five months. I'm sure folks have plenty of other examples that come to mind.
With all these issues in play, I think it is time for an elected board to take the reins soon. I want to make clear that I really appreciate the work the temporary board has done and this request isn't intended with any negativity towards them (and I hope they run for election to the permanent board). But if significant changes to how the site operates are needed to improve the financial situation, those changes should be made by an elected board with a clear mandate from members — well before the situation becomes an emergency. An elected board can set staff priorities to get things done and take feedback from members in MetaTalk to drive policy changes.
My hope is that we can establish a firm timeline for board elections in this post. If there are major roadblocks to holding elections, what are they?
Three months ago, we heard that it "will soon be time for members of our community to run for the Board of Directors".
I appreciate the temporary board members stepping up and no doubt doing a lot of work behind the scenes to set up MeFiCoFo for long-term success. Right now, MetaFilter might be heading for significant financial troubles or it might be totally fine, depending if one goes by the posted financials or assurances from the mods and board. It doesn't seem to be currently possible for members to get concrete answers about the financial state of the organization.
We've also seen a lot of mistrust and conflict between mods and members, especially in MetaTalk. There has been many months of frustration about the apparent inability to move forward with simple changes, like the proposed moderation log. We have a BIPOC Advisory Board that apparently meets, but minutes haven't been posted for a year and no one is really sure what they do (other than an odd post about rice cookers that apparently wasn't approved by the board). The new site has been almost ready for testing for the last five months. I'm sure folks have plenty of other examples that come to mind.
With all these issues in play, I think it is time for an elected board to take the reins soon. I want to make clear that I really appreciate the work the temporary board has done and this request isn't intended with any negativity towards them (and I hope they run for election to the permanent board). But if significant changes to how the site operates are needed to improve the financial situation, those changes should be made by an elected board with a clear mandate from members — well before the situation becomes an emergency. An elected board can set staff priorities to get things done and take feedback from members in MetaTalk to drive policy changes.
My hope is that we can establish a firm timeline for board elections in this post. If there are major roadblocks to holding elections, what are they?
postscript. if I'm reading this right, there will be a board to oversight moderation and another board for not sure what it is grievances, a final decision before an arbitration. if I'm reading this right this could be a good thing I've always mentioned a mediator but that would be expensive and I would also like to discuss an ombudsman. this person could have oversight to moderation, financials, site policy etc.
and sometime down the line, I'm creating the post now, I'd like to see metafilter have a Poet Laureate in the traditional and modern sense which I have a few ideas on. podcast with members we're talking with other people on the internet but interesting things.
I have six candidates in mind, one I would like as an internum role and a another member for yearly position. I'll just go on now, I think this position should be paid and I think we could have a special fund amongst us to pay for it. I already have an idea to raise the funds off-site or within a meta talk thread.
I think rethinking old or new ideas and proposing positions to help augment the sometimes bitter feelings and hard reads of some of the grievances members have towards moderation, these things could help. I want to see this site expand, gain traction, get back in the game.
I still think a call the papers would be one good solid play for metfilter to get back on the radar. a rough example of this would be the emotional labor thread and all associated materials publicly published.
thank you and good luck.
posted by clavdivs at 2:22 PM on March 1 [3 favorites]
and sometime down the line, I'm creating the post now, I'd like to see metafilter have a Poet Laureate in the traditional and modern sense which I have a few ideas on. podcast with members we're talking with other people on the internet but interesting things.
I have six candidates in mind, one I would like as an internum role and a another member for yearly position. I'll just go on now, I think this position should be paid and I think we could have a special fund amongst us to pay for it. I already have an idea to raise the funds off-site or within a meta talk thread.
I think rethinking old or new ideas and proposing positions to help augment the sometimes bitter feelings and hard reads of some of the grievances members have towards moderation, these things could help. I want to see this site expand, gain traction, get back in the game.
I still think a call the papers would be one good solid play for metfilter to get back on the radar. a rough example of this would be the emotional labor thread and all associated materials publicly published.
thank you and good luck.
posted by clavdivs at 2:22 PM on March 1 [3 favorites]
would like to see one page where all the details on all the board members and committees and future moderators are in one page with either members listed or a small note indicating that the board is reforming forming or working.
I even asked for, effectively, this on *checks notes* December 17th. I do not understand why a single page with this information would be hard to do.
posted by maupuia at 2:27 PM on March 1 [6 favorites]
I even asked for, effectively, this on *checks notes* December 17th. I do not understand why a single page with this information would be hard to do.
posted by maupuia at 2:27 PM on March 1 [6 favorites]
In a similar vein, with all the proposed requests and committed actions from board and mods, it would be fabulous to have a single place to track progress on these items.
Perhaps a public Jira board, or similar.
posted by coriolisdave at 2:45 PM on March 1 [4 favorites]
Perhaps a public Jira board, or similar.
posted by coriolisdave at 2:45 PM on March 1 [4 favorites]
I even asked for, effectively, this on *checks notes* December 17th. I do not understand why a single page with this information would be hard to do.
We don't even need a new page, we simply need the names of the board, mods and other staff on the About page, with links to their profiles. But the lack of organizational capacity to acknowledge, prioritize and tackle such a task is a problem that keeps coming up again and again. The only real way for the members of a foundation to change such a situation is to vote for a board that will do so on their behalf. Which brings me to the subject of this post...
posted by ssg at 3:17 PM on March 1 [11 favorites]
We don't even need a new page, we simply need the names of the board, mods and other staff on the About page, with links to their profiles. But the lack of organizational capacity to acknowledge, prioritize and tackle such a task is a problem that keeps coming up again and again. The only real way for the members of a foundation to change such a situation is to vote for a board that will do so on their behalf. Which brings me to the subject of this post...
posted by ssg at 3:17 PM on March 1 [11 favorites]
We really should get started on the plans for the pre-planning of the plans to pick a piece of voting software.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:37 PM on March 1 [7 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:37 PM on March 1 [7 favorites]
Before we've even picked the optimal voting system?
posted by box at 3:46 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 3:46 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]
Before we've even picked the optimal voting system?
agreed, should be a priority.
Timeline and major roadblocks to holding elections, what are they?
perhaps voting on the old site might make more sense. there could be various reasons; people have or may not migrate or adjusted to the new site. maybe there are I don't like the word lurker but people reading metafilter who want to join when the site changes over, they would miss out on the vote that took place here.
posted by clavdivs at 4:33 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]
agreed, should be a priority.
Timeline and major roadblocks to holding elections, what are they?
perhaps voting on the old site might make more sense. there could be various reasons; people have or may not migrate or adjusted to the new site. maybe there are I don't like the word lurker but people reading metafilter who want to join when the site changes over, they would miss out on the vote that took place here.
posted by clavdivs at 4:33 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]
I've been involved in too much 501c3 paperwork lately so sorry if I don't have everything straight but... we don't have bylaws yet, right? In order to have actually elected members, we need bylaws to dictate how we elect people. The bylaws are usually written by the initial, non-elected board. The timeline we need is when they'll be able to have 1) finished and 2) voted on the bylaws.
This isn't a "we need to plan to plan before we can plan" thing, that's just how elections in nonprofits work. For further reference, members don't usually vote on the bylaws, or really have any input into their initial writing. They might vote on later amendments (if members are afforded voting rights, which isn't always the case), but to actually get things done on a reasonable timeline, the board members should get some basic bylaws in place without engaging in a bunch of back-and-forth with the members. There are free legal clinics and nonprofit supporting orgs that often have examples or templates for 501c3s to use. I have a template but it's specific to my state, Metafilter probably wants one specific to Delaware.
posted by brook horse at 4:55 PM on March 1 [17 favorites]
This isn't a "we need to plan to plan before we can plan" thing, that's just how elections in nonprofits work. For further reference, members don't usually vote on the bylaws, or really have any input into their initial writing. They might vote on later amendments (if members are afforded voting rights, which isn't always the case), but to actually get things done on a reasonable timeline, the board members should get some basic bylaws in place without engaging in a bunch of back-and-forth with the members. There are free legal clinics and nonprofit supporting orgs that often have examples or templates for 501c3s to use. I have a template but it's specific to my state, Metafilter probably wants one specific to Delaware.
posted by brook horse at 4:55 PM on March 1 [17 favorites]
This One Weird Site Invented The Perfect Voting Process (Step Four Will Shock You)
posted by lucidium at 5:23 PM on March 1 [3 favorites]
posted by lucidium at 5:23 PM on March 1 [3 favorites]
The moderation oversight committee is just one committee. We are aiming to:
1. Look into moderation actions when requested to by members, do some fact-finding, and see if we can bring resolution by talking to the mods. If not, we’ll refer to the board.
2. Track moderation issues (i.e. just try to figure out what’s happening with mods and communications) and make recommendations more broadly. Bear in mind that a lot of communication happens by email/MeMail, and a lot more moderation happens than is represented in MetaTalk…we think. We’ll be categorizing what we’ve learned.
That’s it. It really is all in my OG post.
On a personal note my BIL who lives across Canada from me is in palliative care and my MIL and husband have gone to be with him so I’m solo parenting etc. besides normal work madness, so slower than usual.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:10 PM on March 1 [13 favorites]
1. Look into moderation actions when requested to by members, do some fact-finding, and see if we can bring resolution by talking to the mods. If not, we’ll refer to the board.
2. Track moderation issues (i.e. just try to figure out what’s happening with mods and communications) and make recommendations more broadly. Bear in mind that a lot of communication happens by email/MeMail, and a lot more moderation happens than is represented in MetaTalk…we think. We’ll be categorizing what we’ve learned.
That’s it. It really is all in my OG post.
On a personal note my BIL who lives across Canada from me is in palliative care and my MIL and husband have gone to be with him so I’m solo parenting etc. besides normal work madness, so slower than usual.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:10 PM on March 1 [13 favorites]
P.S. but the committee is great.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:10 PM on March 1 [5 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 6:10 PM on March 1 [5 favorites]
Best wishes to you and your family, warriorqueen.
posted by lapis at 6:19 PM on March 1 [12 favorites]
posted by lapis at 6:19 PM on March 1 [12 favorites]
We investigated a few options for third-party platforms, but ultimately weren't comfortable relying on one, entrusting it with access to the member DB, and requiring people to register offsite. Instead, Kirkaracha recommended doing it in-house with a prebuilt Laravel package. That way we'll have complete control over the process and won't have to pay out subscription fees indefinitely.
We're testing an MVP of the beta site now, but implementing this will be the main priority once it's ready for launch.
clavdivs: "I would like to see one page where all the details on all the board members and committees and future moderators are in one page with either members listed or a small note indicating that the board is reforming forming or working."
There is an FAQ page and all related threads are collected here. There's also a (placeholder) metafilter.foundation URL reserved, but we haven't had time to build out a proper website for it yet. If somebody well-versed in web design wants to help spin up a basic landing page, message me!
coriolisdave: "Perhaps a public Jira board, or similar."
Not familiar with Jira but it looks a little overkill for our purposes. There actually aren't too many projects being juggled at once, it's just a matter of bandwidth and person-hours. Feature updates and milestones will always be announced here, promise!
ssg: "lack of organizational capacity to acknowledge, prioritize and tackle such a task is a problem that keeps coming up again and again"
See, to me, coding a custom page for information that's already been announced multiple times is itself a lower-tier priority. We're focused on more concrete operational things like the business/legal paperwork for the initial setup and transition (done), shifting income and payroll to new accounts (mostly done), tax preparation (coming up), and working with frimble, kirkaracha, and the mods to identify and address pressing technical issues and improvements (ongoing), as well as participating in the site as users. And of course we're always happy to accept volunteer help for various other aspects, for example the big-ticket AWS savings and the nascent moderation oversight committee.
box: "Before we've even picked the optimal voting system?"
something something Condorcet paradox 🤯
brook horse: "In order to have actually elected members, we need bylaws to dictate how we elect people"
Yes, this was the main project prior to the legal handover. We'd hammered most of the provisions out based on lawyer's advice for the purposes of the transition; still needs some further tweaks to set up voting, but NotLost and I are working to finish it up.
warriorqueen, thank you for the valuable work you and the others are contributing -- palliative care is never easy but I'm glad your brother-in-law is able to spend this time with family. Wishing you and your family peace in this hard time.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:32 PM on March 1 [5 favorites]
We're testing an MVP of the beta site now, but implementing this will be the main priority once it's ready for launch.
clavdivs: "I would like to see one page where all the details on all the board members and committees and future moderators are in one page with either members listed or a small note indicating that the board is reforming forming or working."
There is an FAQ page and all related threads are collected here. There's also a (placeholder) metafilter.foundation URL reserved, but we haven't had time to build out a proper website for it yet. If somebody well-versed in web design wants to help spin up a basic landing page, message me!
coriolisdave: "Perhaps a public Jira board, or similar."
Not familiar with Jira but it looks a little overkill for our purposes. There actually aren't too many projects being juggled at once, it's just a matter of bandwidth and person-hours. Feature updates and milestones will always be announced here, promise!
ssg: "lack of organizational capacity to acknowledge, prioritize and tackle such a task is a problem that keeps coming up again and again"
See, to me, coding a custom page for information that's already been announced multiple times is itself a lower-tier priority. We're focused on more concrete operational things like the business/legal paperwork for the initial setup and transition (done), shifting income and payroll to new accounts (mostly done), tax preparation (coming up), and working with frimble, kirkaracha, and the mods to identify and address pressing technical issues and improvements (ongoing), as well as participating in the site as users. And of course we're always happy to accept volunteer help for various other aspects, for example the big-ticket AWS savings and the nascent moderation oversight committee.
box: "Before we've even picked the optimal voting system?"
something something Condorcet paradox 🤯
brook horse: "In order to have actually elected members, we need bylaws to dictate how we elect people"
Yes, this was the main project prior to the legal handover. We'd hammered most of the provisions out based on lawyer's advice for the purposes of the transition; still needs some further tweaks to set up voting, but NotLost and I are working to finish it up.
warriorqueen, thank you for the valuable work you and the others are contributing -- palliative care is never easy but I'm glad your brother-in-law is able to spend this time with family. Wishing you and your family peace in this hard time.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:32 PM on March 1 [5 favorites]
Rhaomi: Not familiar with Jira but it looks a little overkill for our purposes. There actually aren't too many projects being juggled at once, it's just a matter of bandwidth and person-hours. Feature updates and milestones will always be announced here, promise!
Sure, jira might be overkill. But my point is the community needs some sort of visibility into the the progress of items on the “to do” list that is more visible than the current model, ie “inhabit every single Metatalk thread and prod mods until you get a response on something”.
If there were a centralised place where one could go to see updates about all the things that get committed to in the middle of a 100-comment MeTa, that would surely make everyone’s lives easier?
Items would get updated by whomever is working on them, those updates can be public or private, and interested parties can self-serve.
Rather than, for instance, asking in every open MeTa when the twitter block message might make its way out of committee? Or whether the lawyers have provided GDPR feedback yet? Or…. Etc.
This is a solved problem. We don’t have to keep living in 1994, before the advent of ticketing systems.
posted by coriolisdave at 9:43 PM on March 1 [14 favorites]
Sure, jira might be overkill. But my point is the community needs some sort of visibility into the the progress of items on the “to do” list that is more visible than the current model, ie “inhabit every single Metatalk thread and prod mods until you get a response on something”.
If there were a centralised place where one could go to see updates about all the things that get committed to in the middle of a 100-comment MeTa, that would surely make everyone’s lives easier?
Items would get updated by whomever is working on them, those updates can be public or private, and interested parties can self-serve.
Rather than, for instance, asking in every open MeTa when the twitter block message might make its way out of committee? Or whether the lawyers have provided GDPR feedback yet? Or…. Etc.
This is a solved problem. We don’t have to keep living in 1994, before the advent of ticketing systems.
posted by coriolisdave at 9:43 PM on March 1 [14 favorites]
Hell, just start using the Git issues tracker in the metafilter Git account.
Spool up projects for “new board”, “mod issues”, and “current site feature requests”.
Then you can track progress on issues there, and (so long as they actually get worked on) no one can complain about lack of transparency. It’s a great way to start rebuilding trust.
posted by coriolisdave at 9:50 PM on March 1 [2 favorites]
Spool up projects for “new board”, “mod issues”, and “current site feature requests”.
Then you can track progress on issues there, and (so long as they actually get worked on) no one can complain about lack of transparency. It’s a great way to start rebuilding trust.
posted by coriolisdave at 9:50 PM on March 1 [2 favorites]
What is a metafilter Git account? I have a vague notion it is something on that site called GitHub, but beyond that, I don't have a clue. I have no coding knowledge or experience. (I did get a decoder ring once a long time ago in a box of Cracker Jacks.) My point is that unless that is something a non coder tech type can understand (and it very well may be), that Git thing won't help some decent percentage of this site.
Or maybe I am so clueless that none of what I wrote other than I am clueless makes sense. If that is accurate, ignore.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 2:47 AM on March 2 [2 favorites]
Or maybe I am so clueless that none of what I wrote other than I am clueless makes sense. If that is accurate, ignore.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 2:47 AM on March 2 [2 favorites]
Yeah to some of us “git” is a mild British insult.
posted by Vatnesine at 8:32 AM on March 2 [1 favorite]
posted by Vatnesine at 8:32 AM on March 2 [1 favorite]
The last time this site held elections, the moderation staff had veto power over who could stand in them.
Could the board please confirm whether this will be the case again.
posted by automatronic at 10:07 AM on March 2 [5 favorites]
Could the board please confirm whether this will be the case again.
posted by automatronic at 10:07 AM on March 2 [5 favorites]
github is largely used for open-source code repositories but can be and often is used to set up very simple and readable documentation on things not-code-related.
anyway the tool doesn't matter at all, just that one exists and is used, and to that end I think simpler is better to start. it's much easier to iterate from a minimum viable product than to try to grapple with the labor overhead of unnecessarily complex platforms.
with the stuff the MOC has done so far, for example, we've been using Google Docs for tracking and collaboration. I would imagine any initial roll-out of public info from us would come via a Google Spreadsheet or some such. no reason why the board couldn't just do the same.
posted by Kybard at 10:47 AM on March 2 [4 favorites]
anyway the tool doesn't matter at all, just that one exists and is used, and to that end I think simpler is better to start. it's much easier to iterate from a minimum viable product than to try to grapple with the labor overhead of unnecessarily complex platforms.
with the stuff the MOC has done so far, for example, we've been using Google Docs for tracking and collaboration. I would imagine any initial roll-out of public info from us would come via a Google Spreadsheet or some such. no reason why the board couldn't just do the same.
posted by Kybard at 10:47 AM on March 2 [4 favorites]
Feature updates and milestones will always be announced here, promise!
I think this is... not a mistake exactly but not something you need to be promising. it might be easier and also more informative to have, say, a Google-or-whatever spreadsheet link available, that you can update when it's relevant, to give people something to monitor for ongoing tasks/projects and status. this would avoid the need to restate or relitigate to nearly the same degree, especially since (as you say) the tasks and projects right now should be relatively straightforward without any extensive member feedback.
something like this could have proposed/expected timelines and deadlines built in, with space to provide context for if/when things shift around. it would obviate the need for threads like this one, which is a good thing.
anyway just a thought! thanks for the work you're doing.
posted by Kybard at 10:56 AM on March 2 [8 favorites]
I think this is... not a mistake exactly but not something you need to be promising. it might be easier and also more informative to have, say, a Google-or-whatever spreadsheet link available, that you can update when it's relevant, to give people something to monitor for ongoing tasks/projects and status. this would avoid the need to restate or relitigate to nearly the same degree, especially since (as you say) the tasks and projects right now should be relatively straightforward without any extensive member feedback.
something like this could have proposed/expected timelines and deadlines built in, with space to provide context for if/when things shift around. it would obviate the need for threads like this one, which is a good thing.
anyway just a thought! thanks for the work you're doing.
posted by Kybard at 10:56 AM on March 2 [8 favorites]
I'd like to see metafilter have a Poet Laureate in the traditional and modern sense which I have a few ideas on
If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.
posted by Lemkin at 3:25 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.
posted by Lemkin at 3:25 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
I'd like to see metafilter have a Poet Laureate
This Is Just To Say
I have eaten
the poet
Who was in
the minutes
and who
you were probably
saving
for the MOC
Forgive me
they were delicious
so leet
and so old
posted by chavenet at 3:42 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
This Is Just To Say
I have eaten
the poet
Who was in
the minutes
and who
you were probably
saving
for the MOC
Forgive me
they were delicious
so leet
and so old
posted by chavenet at 3:42 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
This Is Just To Say
Feature request: A combination favorite and flag button. It can be called a flavorite.
posted by mittens at 3:52 PM on March 2 [7 favorites]
Feature request: A combination favorite and flag button. It can be called a flavorite.
posted by mittens at 3:52 PM on March 2 [7 favorites]
I'd like to see metafilter have a Poet Laureate
I can reliably riff on 'Nantucket', you know where to find me
posted by ginger.beef at 3:57 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
I can reliably riff on 'Nantucket', you know where to find me
posted by ginger.beef at 3:57 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
There once was a web one point oh blogsite,
That reliably collated insight,
Two decades and half,
Have since come to pass,
And it's now b'come host most to bullshite.
posted by lucidium at 4:14 PM on March 2 [3 favorites]
That reliably collated insight,
Two decades and half,
Have since come to pass,
And it's now b'come host most to bullshite.
posted by lucidium at 4:14 PM on March 2 [3 favorites]
posted by clavdivs🌟at 7:24 PM in March.
[favorites +] [⚑]
stan, I'm just going to borrow this once.
posted by clavdivs at 4:26 PM on March 2
[favorites +] [⚑]
stan, I'm just going to borrow this once.
posted by clavdivs at 4:26 PM on March 2
The last time this site held elections, the moderation staff had veto power over who could stand in them.
Could the board please confirm whether this will be the case again.
Given the staff will report to the board, I doubt the bylaws would permit this kind of veto power.
I very much appreciate the effort the interim board has done and that they put their hand up to do it in the first place. But I think we desperately need to get moving on installing a board that can steer this currently rudderless and imminently foundering ship. Is it possible to adopt a set of bylaws that, initially, consist of nothing more than how to vote on the board? Again, we don't need fancy state-of-the-art systems here, we've done elections before with what we have lying around and can do so again. It sounds like we're deep in perfect being the enemy of the good territory here.
posted by dg at 5:15 PM on March 2 [10 favorites]
Could the board please confirm whether this will be the case again.
Given the staff will report to the board, I doubt the bylaws would permit this kind of veto power.
I very much appreciate the effort the interim board has done and that they put their hand up to do it in the first place. But I think we desperately need to get moving on installing a board that can steer this currently rudderless and imminently foundering ship. Is it possible to adopt a set of bylaws that, initially, consist of nothing more than how to vote on the board? Again, we don't need fancy state-of-the-art systems here, we've done elections before with what we have lying around and can do so again. It sounds like we're deep in perfect being the enemy of the good territory here.
posted by dg at 5:15 PM on March 2 [10 favorites]
"The deep of perfect being"
shear poetry.
if they need for a election is so dire or under the need of exigency for a better boat or new crew, what problems outstanding would warrant a very quick election.
I'm very suspicious of rushed elections whether it's on a website or local drain commissioner.
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on March 2
shear poetry.
if they need for a election is so dire or under the need of exigency for a better boat or new crew, what problems outstanding would warrant a very quick election.
I'm very suspicious of rushed elections whether it's on a website or local drain commissioner.
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on March 2
I acknowledge that the bylaws got bottlenecked with me, due to a few distractions. I have just sent my feedback to Rhaomi. I hope to help with further governance-admin type work. I invite anyone who wants to join me in this.
posted by NotLost at 7:24 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
posted by NotLost at 7:24 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
I'm very suspicious of rushed elections whether it's on a website or local drain commissioner.
Yes! can we slow down! There's a whole 8 more months left in this year.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:22 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Yes! can we slow down! There's a whole 8 more months left in this year.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:22 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Given the staff will report to the board, I doubt the bylaws would permit this kind of veto power.
They could accidentally back into it if a requirement for being a voting member of the Foundation is being an active member of the site.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on March 3
They could accidentally back into it if a requirement for being a voting member of the Foundation is being an active member of the site.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on March 3
I would point out that with one notable exception, every democratic country in the world manages to conduct elections within the timeframe of a couple months.
Obviously MeFi has the additional step of needing to establish a voting system, but that really does not need to be dragged out either. Have a MeTa to discuss that as a community (so, um, this MeTa basically), let the interim board take the community feedback and decide on a method next month, then open up nominations, have a week or two for candidate forums to happen (which could be as simple as a MeTa for each candidate to present their platform/positions and answer questions, Reddit AMA-style), and then have the election.
There is no good reason this couldn't happen over the next two or three months. Let's not overcomplicate things for once.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:51 AM on March 3 [21 favorites]
Obviously MeFi has the additional step of needing to establish a voting system, but that really does not need to be dragged out either. Have a MeTa to discuss that as a community (so, um, this MeTa basically), let the interim board take the community feedback and decide on a method next month, then open up nominations, have a week or two for candidate forums to happen (which could be as simple as a MeTa for each candidate to present their platform/positions and answer questions, Reddit AMA-style), and then have the election.
There is no good reason this couldn't happen over the next two or three months. Let's not overcomplicate things for once.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:51 AM on March 3 [21 favorites]
This may be putting the cart before the horse, but re voting methods: I encourage the use of one of the below methods:
1. Let's say the election is to decide who sits in S seats. Then let everyone approve up to S/2 candidates. The S candidates with the most such approvals get seats. This has the advantage of balancing majoritarianism with allowing some representation of minority viewpoints. It is also really simple to implement.
2. Proportional Approval: Let everyone approve as many candidates as they wish. The winning candidates are chosen turn-wise in a mathematical way that makes it so that people whose ballots provided support to candidates that have already won contribute less to the subsequent turns. This produces remarkably proportional results, but does require some mathematical / coding work to tabulate.
(Of course, it may turn out that the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of seats so the whole election thing becomes moot, but I like voting methods okay?)
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 11:56 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
1. Let's say the election is to decide who sits in S seats. Then let everyone approve up to S/2 candidates. The S candidates with the most such approvals get seats. This has the advantage of balancing majoritarianism with allowing some representation of minority viewpoints. It is also really simple to implement.
2. Proportional Approval: Let everyone approve as many candidates as they wish. The winning candidates are chosen turn-wise in a mathematical way that makes it so that people whose ballots provided support to candidates that have already won contribute less to the subsequent turns. This produces remarkably proportional results, but does require some mathematical / coding work to tabulate.
(Of course, it may turn out that the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of seats so the whole election thing becomes moot, but I like voting methods okay?)
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 11:56 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
"Conducting an election" is not the same as "drafting the legal documents governing an election." You need Delaware law-compliant bylaws covering things like length of term, qualifications, powers/duties, indemnification, etc. It doesn't have to take forever to put them together, but it's also more complicated than spit-balling in MeTa.
posted by Mid at 12:35 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by Mid at 12:35 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I think approval voting (which was used for the Steering Committee, I think) is probably fine?
Vote for the people you think would be good, the top N vote-getters are elected.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:55 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Vote for the people you think would be good, the top N vote-getters are elected.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:55 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't it make sense to adopt generic bylaws that only cover enough ground to get us to the point of being able to run an election — and then to allow the elected board to work on whatever additional bylaws are needed afterwards? Surely there are model bylaws that we can simply adopt without spending a bunch of time on this.
posted by ssg at 1:02 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
posted by ssg at 1:02 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
As I understand it, there are already boilerplate bylaws as part of non-profit incorporation. "Incorporation is going to happen soon with a boilerplate set of bylaws" - Oct 15. There's a later source for this (after the fact), but I've lost the thread. #inconsistentTags I don't think they've ever been posted/linked to, and I expect you have to pay Delaware to get them otherwise.
On Dec. 20 a site update said, "We are working with [the board] to have a smooth transition and the Foundation will make an official announcement in the coming days." I don't believe we've seen a MetaTalk posted by a board member since then.
posted by sylvanshine at 1:21 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
On Dec. 20 a site update said, "We are working with [the board] to have a smooth transition and the Foundation will make an official announcement in the coming days." I don't believe we've seen a MetaTalk posted by a board member since then.
posted by sylvanshine at 1:21 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
re: Jira: I think a public issue tracker could be great, but (whenever and wherever it's appropriate to discuss issue trackers specifically), I cast a very loud vote against Jira. I use it with one of my clients and I hate it. It's almost certainly overkill, but also it's unwieldy and finicky and basic features are often premium-price things or just ignored no matter how often the public requests them.
I would bet actual money that any widely-used open-source issue tracker is a better fit for MetaFilter, and would also be a better fit philosophically.
posted by kristi at 1:32 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I would bet actual money that any widely-used open-source issue tracker is a better fit for MetaFilter, and would also be a better fit philosophically.
posted by kristi at 1:32 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Can the board please post a link to the current bylaws in the non-profit transition FAQ document?
posted by ssg at 1:32 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by ssg at 1:32 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Most nonprofits don't have boards that are elected by voting non-board members, they're elected by the previous board members. Nonprofits where members vote for the board exist, but they're not super common. So I don't know if there is easy boilerplate for the kind of membership voting structure we're looking for. It would also be complicated by the fact that board member elections are usually done live at a board meeting, because elections need to follow the same procedures of being moved to the floor by vote, etc. Any time/date picked would exclude lots of people, so you would need in your bylaws some method of voting without being at the board meeting. In my organization we use proxy voting but it's not one that has membership voting, and with more than the eight people on our board it could get very unwieldy (basically you designate someone to vote in your stead, but having a ton of people designate an individual, and proving they did, would get really messy).
Anyone here in a nonprofit with membership voting? I'm sure there's examples out there but it's not a common board setup so I don't have anything off the top of my head.
Not Lost: I'm happy to help with paperwork/bylaw/etc. stuff if I can, but if it's the voting structure holding stuff up I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of suggestions because I've not been in an organization with voting members.
posted by brook horse at 1:46 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Anyone here in a nonprofit with membership voting? I'm sure there's examples out there but it's not a common board setup so I don't have anything off the top of my head.
Not Lost: I'm happy to help with paperwork/bylaw/etc. stuff if I can, but if it's the voting structure holding stuff up I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of suggestions because I've not been in an organization with voting members.
posted by brook horse at 1:46 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
any widely-used open-source issue tracker is a better fit for MetaFilter
I'm thinking of using GitHub Issues but using the API so people can submit issues from the site instead of having to go to GitHub. We should be able to use a custom field with the reporting member's username.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 1:56 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
I'm thinking of using GitHub Issues but using the API so people can submit issues from the site instead of having to go to GitHub. We should be able to use a custom field with the reporting member's username.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 1:56 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Not exactly the prompt, but pretty much any cooperative with more than a half dozen to a dozen members is going to have a process for annual elections.
Here are the bylaws for wheatsville co-op in Austin Texas, which outline the process for owners to vote.
posted by CPAnarchist at 1:57 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Here are the bylaws for wheatsville co-op in Austin Texas, which outline the process for owners to vote.
posted by CPAnarchist at 1:57 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
I also looked at Jam, which is pretty impressive and is supposed to be free for non-profits, but they have ignored my attempts to sign up several times and ignored my email.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 1:59 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 1:59 PM on March 3 [1 favorite]
I would imagine that for now the board could simply vote to receive whichever persons were elected by the membership, in lieu of more formalized bylaws to be written in the future.
Seconding the request to get a link to (or have posted here) the actual bylaws as they now stand.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:03 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Seconding the request to get a link to (or have posted here) the actual bylaws as they now stand.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:03 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Actually, this might be a better start.
Sample bylaws for a volunteer run membership organization
posted by CPAnarchist at 2:08 PM on March 3
Sample bylaws for a volunteer run membership organization
posted by CPAnarchist at 2:08 PM on March 3
I don't really understand all the talk about coding up voting platforms or paying for a premium one. I am a state coordinator for a national nonprofit, and we do all the voting for our representative board with Google Docs.
posted by Miko at 2:46 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
posted by Miko at 2:46 PM on March 3 [10 favorites]
"I would like to see one page where all the details on all the board members and committees and future moderators are in one page with either members listed or a small note indicating that the board is reforming forming or working"
"There is an FAQ page and all related threads are collected here."
You're kidding, right? The FAQ, indeed, explains the Governing Board fine. A quick glance shows me that its members are 1adam12, Rhaomi and Gorgik. Very handy.
But I also know that there's a BIPOC Board and a Moderation Oversight Committee and apparently other committees (since it says upthread that "The moderation oversight committee is just one committee") Those aren't in the MetaFilter Transition FAQ.
So, if someone wants to know the names and/or members of the other boards and committees, you're telling me that they should just read through 18 related threads? With a combined total of 1,474 comments? Consisting of 141,192 words (not counting the "posted by ～ at ～" lines, etc.)?
That's longer than Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (107,253 words).
That's longer than Sense and Sensibility (119,394 words).
I just assumed there was some page somewhere with this information and I just didn't know the link to the page.
posted by Bugbread at 4:27 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
"There is an FAQ page and all related threads are collected here."
You're kidding, right? The FAQ, indeed, explains the Governing Board fine. A quick glance shows me that its members are 1adam12, Rhaomi and Gorgik. Very handy.
But I also know that there's a BIPOC Board and a Moderation Oversight Committee and apparently other committees (since it says upthread that "The moderation oversight committee is just one committee") Those aren't in the MetaFilter Transition FAQ.
So, if someone wants to know the names and/or members of the other boards and committees, you're telling me that they should just read through 18 related threads? With a combined total of 1,474 comments? Consisting of 141,192 words (not counting the "posted by ～ at ～" lines, etc.)?
That's longer than Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (107,253 words).
That's longer than Sense and Sensibility (119,394 words).
I just assumed there was some page somewhere with this information and I just didn't know the link to the page.
posted by Bugbread at 4:27 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
By "the moderation oversight committee is just one committee," I believe that was clarifying on a comment above that implied there was a second committee. So it's saying there is only one committee, not that it is one of multiple committees.
posted by brook horse at 4:36 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 4:36 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
At minimum, there's also a Steering Committee, right? At least, that's what it says in the page footer, which links to this page.
posted by Bugbread at 4:57 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 4:57 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I thought that committee was dissolved as it was just for transition? But I don't know for sure. Could be updated on that page if so.
posted by brook horse at 5:11 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 5:11 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
Ah, I see. Me being me, I think it would be useful to have a page with current and past committees (just their names) so there's no confusion between "is the X Committee not listed because they simply forgot to list it, or is it not listed because it longer exists?"
I'm not talking anything really involved or difficult that we'd need to form a committee to discuss implementing a Squorbl version-tracking Gloopf page with Blerg integration, just add html like this to the "About Us" page.
posted by Bugbread at 5:29 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I'm not talking anything really involved or difficult that we'd need to form a committee to discuss implementing a Squorbl version-tracking Gloopf page with Blerg integration, just add html like this to the "About Us" page.
posted by Bugbread at 5:29 PM on March 3 [8 favorites]
Anyone here in a nonprofit with membership voting? I'm sure there's examples out there but it's not a common board setup so I don't have anything off the top of my head.
brook horse: SFWA is a largish nonprofit where the membership votes on the board. (I'm not a member but i know a ton of members; i also know there are several SFWA members here on MetaFilter.) Their bylaws are right here. They vote by written or electronic ballot, without a meeting, via procedures specified in the bylaws.
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:48 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
brook horse: SFWA is a largish nonprofit where the membership votes on the board. (I'm not a member but i know a ton of members; i also know there are several SFWA members here on MetaFilter.) Their bylaws are right here. They vote by written or electronic ballot, without a meeting, via procedures specified in the bylaws.
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:48 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I know probably two-thirds of you think i'm insufferable; but i swear to fuck i'm going to run for the Board once they open elections.
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:58 PM on March 3 [17 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:58 PM on March 3 [17 favorites]
I've kept a half-assed Google Doc with some of the requested info in one spot. I cannot stress enough how much of a half-ass it is but it exists as a work in progress.
posted by Diskeater at 6:10 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 6:10 PM on March 3 [6 favorites]
I don't really understand all the talk about coding up voting platforms or paying for a premium one. I am a state coordinator for a national nonprofit, and we do all the voting for our representative board with Google Docs.
if voting involves anything Google, I'll not be voting.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:41 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
if voting involves anything Google, I'll not be voting.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:41 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
I am and have been involved with a number of non-profits over the years. Every single one has the members nominating and voting for the board/committee/whatever. I've never come across one that allows the outgoing board to vote in a new board. The process in all organisations I've been involved in is summarised as:
One thing I would suggest is that staggered terms be applied to board members - you don't want everyone to be voted off at once for a number of reasons. I suggest 50% of initial board members are appointed for one year and the other 50% for two years, so only half the board gets voted on each year. Well, 50% except there should be an odd number of board members.
To be honest, to get an actual board up and running, things could be as simple as two MeTa threads - one to submit nominations and one to cast votes. Obviously, only members would be able to do either. This is far from ideal, but it already exists and is as secure as necessary, albeit clunky and annoying for whoever manages it. The hardest part of all this is getting the initial bylaws and board in place and it's important to just get it done without trying to make it perfect.
posted by dg at 6:41 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
- Call for nominations goes out to members
- Nominations are received and collated into a meeting (AGM) agenda and sent out to members with a notice of meeting
- AGM is held and members cast their votes (prior to this, the technicality of declaring all positions vacant is done by the chair)
- Votes are tallied and outcome declared (and recorded in minutes, of course).
One thing I would suggest is that staggered terms be applied to board members - you don't want everyone to be voted off at once for a number of reasons. I suggest 50% of initial board members are appointed for one year and the other 50% for two years, so only half the board gets voted on each year. Well, 50% except there should be an odd number of board members.
To be honest, to get an actual board up and running, things could be as simple as two MeTa threads - one to submit nominations and one to cast votes. Obviously, only members would be able to do either. This is far from ideal, but it already exists and is as secure as necessary, albeit clunky and annoying for whoever manages it. The hardest part of all this is getting the initial bylaws and board in place and it's important to just get it done without trying to make it perfect.
posted by dg at 6:41 PM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Rhamoi links were covering what is available would make a good starting point for one space with all the committees, moderation, etc. names of those running and current. past members, that could be discussed as asking your permission before doing so out of courtesy more before formality I think that would be neat. one page to find us. essentially,
what bugbread said.
Adrienne, I can say this, your platform is honest.
But you're not Nixon running in 72'.
(The ghost of Murray Chotiner told that to me in a dream when I ran for class president in 1976)
and, and somewhere on the blue, twice, I declared:
It is my intention to run for the office Presidency of the United States.
I say this with pleasure now because..
I assume that the election would have each candidate and the names who voted for them or will it be a secret ballot as they say.
I reject an idea of a 2-year board member and then a one year board member. the logic is sound but those running will be familiar with the practices with the office that they're running for in other words they're not going to be going into it unprepared, I'm sure they outgoing members could lend advice or some recommendations. if they rapport can be built between elections, this is all the better.
posted by clavdivs at 6:46 PM on March 3
what bugbread said.
Adrienne, I can say this, your platform is honest.
But you're not Nixon running in 72'.
(The ghost of Murray Chotiner told that to me in a dream when I ran for class president in 1976)
and, and somewhere on the blue, twice, I declared:
It is my intention to run for the office Presidency of the United States.
I say this with pleasure now because..
I assume that the election would have each candidate and the names who voted for them or will it be a secret ballot as they say.
I reject an idea of a 2-year board member and then a one year board member. the logic is sound but those running will be familiar with the practices with the office that they're running for in other words they're not going to be going into it unprepared, I'm sure they outgoing members could lend advice or some recommendations. if they rapport can be built between elections, this is all the better.
posted by clavdivs at 6:46 PM on March 3
clavdivs: My platform is: (a) everyone needs to get their shit together; (b) there is no way to restore trust between users and staff until shit is gotten together; (c) i believe i can be useful in the endeavor of getting shit together (especially wrt moderation and policy).
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:53 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:53 PM on March 3 [15 favorites]
I reject an idea of a 2-year board member and then a one year board member. the logic is sound but those running will be familiar with the practices with the office that they're running for in other words they're not going to be going into it unprepared
That's a reasonable point, except it's by no means certain that anyone nominating is familiar with what they need to do or with MetaFilter at all. Unless some qualifying parameters are put in place such as minimum membership periods, anyone that paid $5 yesterday would be able to nominate.
There is also another agenda in my suggestion, being to avoid hijacking attempts. If the board is spilled in its entirety each year, it would be fairly easy for a relatively small group of members to hijack the organisation by nominating and voting for members with a completely different agenda. For example, a bunch of people from some right-wing/nazi reddit forum could decide they like the idea of taking over MetaFilter. They could then band together to nominate a complete new board that would turn the nature of MeFi around completely and turn it into a nazi hangout. Only spilling half the board helps avoid that. I appreciate this might sound like a far-fetched idea nd something that would never happen. But it's not and it does happen. I know a few people who have been part of multiple organisations where this exact thing has happened. A combination of split board terms and a qualifying period of membership or similar (maybe as simple as restricting who can nominate prospective board members) can make this much more difficult.
posted by dg at 7:05 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
That's a reasonable point, except it's by no means certain that anyone nominating is familiar with what they need to do or with MetaFilter at all. Unless some qualifying parameters are put in place such as minimum membership periods, anyone that paid $5 yesterday would be able to nominate.
There is also another agenda in my suggestion, being to avoid hijacking attempts. If the board is spilled in its entirety each year, it would be fairly easy for a relatively small group of members to hijack the organisation by nominating and voting for members with a completely different agenda. For example, a bunch of people from some right-wing/nazi reddit forum could decide they like the idea of taking over MetaFilter. They could then band together to nominate a complete new board that would turn the nature of MeFi around completely and turn it into a nazi hangout. Only spilling half the board helps avoid that. I appreciate this might sound like a far-fetched idea nd something that would never happen. But it's not and it does happen. I know a few people who have been part of multiple organisations where this exact thing has happened. A combination of split board terms and a qualifying period of membership or similar (maybe as simple as restricting who can nominate prospective board members) can make this much more difficult.
posted by dg at 7:05 PM on March 3 [9 favorites]
dg: There is also another agenda in my suggestion, being to avoid hijacking attempts. If the board is spilled in its entirety each year, it would be fairly easy for a relatively small group of members to hijack the organisation by nominating and voting for members with a completely different agenda. .... I appreciate this might sound like a far-fetched idea nd something that would never happen. But it's not and it does happen.
I have not been particularly excited about MetaFilter becoming a non-profit for exactly this reason. One of my favorite non-profits became the exact opposite of its original purpose. I don't want to see that happen here. Yes, it can and does happen.
Thanks for pointing that out, dg.
posted by kristi at 8:09 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I have not been particularly excited about MetaFilter becoming a non-profit for exactly this reason. One of my favorite non-profits became the exact opposite of its original purpose. I don't want to see that happen here. Yes, it can and does happen.
Thanks for pointing that out, dg.
posted by kristi at 8:09 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a: if voting involves anything Google, I'll not be voting.
You're not alone in that. Trusting Google becomes less appealing by the week.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:10 AM on March 4
You're not alone in that. Trusting Google becomes less appealing by the week.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:10 AM on March 4
I'm fine with Mefi's small team of volunteers using any tools that are functional, cost-effective, familiar to them, familiar to users, etc. No point being precious about filling in a Google form on a site which passes $40-50,000 of user donations to Amazon a year.
posted by Klipspringer at 2:30 AM on March 4 [15 favorites]
posted by Klipspringer at 2:30 AM on March 4 [15 favorites]
I'm fine with us having different opinions on that and I'm not going to tell the volunteers they need to accommodate me. But I get to feel about this the way I feel about it, and it's unkind to call that 'being precious'.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:57 AM on March 4
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:57 AM on March 4
Everyone should fill out a paper ballot and mail it to me at my home. I'll invite the Chicago area mefites over and we can all count them together over tacos and margs. This comment started as a joke but as I kept writing it started to sound like an actually good idea.
posted by phunniemee at 4:51 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 4:51 AM on March 4 [6 favorites]
I reject an idea of a 2-year board member and then a one year board member. the logic is sound but those running will be familiar with the practices with the office that they're running for in other words they're not going to be going into it unprepared,
Why would everyone be assumed to be familiar with participating in a non-profit board? It is a thing not that many people do.
The other reason for splitting board terms is that it reduces the number of people you have to recruit at a time. Filling a board is often less about elections and more about cajoling people to participate.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:22 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
Why would everyone be assumed to be familiar with participating in a non-profit board? It is a thing not that many people do.
The other reason for splitting board terms is that it reduces the number of people you have to recruit at a time. Filling a board is often less about elections and more about cajoling people to participate.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:22 AM on March 4 [8 favorites]
+1 to a staggered board. Helps retain institutional knowledge, supports stability of leadership, reduces risk of sudden turnovers (eg griefers, pranksters, etc.). Very common in board structures.
posted by Mid at 5:39 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
posted by Mid at 5:39 AM on March 4 [7 favorites]
+1 to staggered terms. For the board I was on, you couldn't do more than 3 terms in a row before having to be off for a term. One thing that helps continuity is having a 3-year presidential term, where 1 year is spent as the president-elect, 1 year as president, and 1 year as a past president/trustee-at-large.
It's a good thing to have people on that haven't served before, it adds fresh perspectives. If it's the same small group year after year, it gets very easy to slip into "this is the way it's always been done".
posted by Sparky Buttons at 5:57 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
It's a good thing to have people on that haven't served before, it adds fresh perspectives. If it's the same small group year after year, it gets very easy to slip into "this is the way it's always been done".
posted by Sparky Buttons at 5:57 AM on March 4 [3 favorites]
A staggered board is really helpful for a number of reasons; I'm strongly in favour of that model.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:09 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 6:09 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
No point being precious about filling in a Google form on a site which passes $40-50,000 of user donations to Amazon a year.
Please keep dismissing our concerns. it works very well.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:10 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
Please keep dismissing our concerns. it works very well.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:10 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
Do we not already have the infrastructure in place to run an election using the same system that was used to elect the transition team?
I mean, I do think the handwringing about using Google is silly and also that it was probably not a great use of resources and staff time to build a custom system but if we already have it what are we even arguing about.
Agreed on staggered terms, I don't think I've ever heard of a similar kind of board that had full turnover ever two years or whatever. I'd say for the initial election (making up numbers here), let's say there are nine members and three year terms: have the top three vote-getters get first dibs on whether they want to take the full three-year term, then go down the list until all three three-person classes of board members are filled, then after that yearly elections for the three members who are rolling off.
Also, what about officers: chair, treasurer, clerk/secretary? Possibly this is already addressed in the provisional bylaws (and by the way, did those get posted and I missed it?)
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
I mean, I do think the handwringing about using Google is silly and also that it was probably not a great use of resources and staff time to build a custom system but if we already have it what are we even arguing about.
Agreed on staggered terms, I don't think I've ever heard of a similar kind of board that had full turnover ever two years or whatever. I'd say for the initial election (making up numbers here), let's say there are nine members and three year terms: have the top three vote-getters get first dibs on whether they want to take the full three-year term, then go down the list until all three three-person classes of board members are filled, then after that yearly elections for the three members who are rolling off.
Also, what about officers: chair, treasurer, clerk/secretary? Possibly this is already addressed in the provisional bylaws (and by the way, did those get posted and I missed it?)
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
Possibly this is already addressed in the provisional bylaws (and by the way, did those get posted and I missed it?)
I don't think those are done.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:05 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
I don't think those are done.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:05 AM on March 4 [2 favorites]
Setting aside the number of users currently already accessing mefi via Chrome, if folks have reservations with Google forms, there are many other form alternatives. it could also be done by email, at significantly greater pain to the person who has to process it. We all have one unique user number to assign one vote to, so we won’t have a double voting issue.
As far as whether members at large vote or not: it happens both ways, and is a philosophical choice the organization makes. Many boards, and most major boards, use a nominating process that may or may not be open (in some cases anyone can nominate or self-nominate, in other cases the board scouts and researches names and creates their own nominations) in some cases it’s the board members who vote on who joins the board, in others there are “voting members” and in others every registered member has a vote. All these are choices that need to be addressed by the current board as it writes the bylaws.
Most major boards do not have members at large vote on every board member. Clubs and professional organizations often do, so it may make sense for MetaFilter to do so. Especially because the issue of trust is so important in this moment:
posted by Miko at 9:14 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
As far as whether members at large vote or not: it happens both ways, and is a philosophical choice the organization makes. Many boards, and most major boards, use a nominating process that may or may not be open (in some cases anyone can nominate or self-nominate, in other cases the board scouts and researches names and creates their own nominations) in some cases it’s the board members who vote on who joins the board, in others there are “voting members” and in others every registered member has a vote. All these are choices that need to be addressed by the current board as it writes the bylaws.
Most major boards do not have members at large vote on every board member. Clubs and professional organizations often do, so it may make sense for MetaFilter to do so. Especially because the issue of trust is so important in this moment:
posted by Miko at 9:14 AM on March 4 [4 favorites]
It makes sense for member to vote on the board. The main point of all this was to become run by the community.
posted by NotLost at 11:20 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 11:20 AM on March 4 [5 favorites]
Board members deciding who joins the board is literally The Cabal. And we all know there is no Cabal. Therefore it has to be a vote of members.
posted by Klipspringer at 12:37 PM on March 4 [2 favorites]
posted by Klipspringer at 12:37 PM on March 4 [2 favorites]
I am and have been involved with a number of non-profits over the years. Every single one has the members nominating and voting for the board/committee/whatever. I've never come across one that allows the outgoing board to vote in a new board.
Most American nonprofits are self-perpetuating boards, unfortunately. Awesome to hear that membership voting is common elsewhere. Should have specified, had some ramble about the weirdness of US nonprofit law that I deleted so then it wasn't clear I was talking specifically about the structure of US nonprofits (which is what Metafilter is). Metafilter should absolutely have a member-elected board, I just don't have examples of bylaws that incorporate that though some great examples have been shared.
It's not practical for an organisation like MetaFilter to hold an actual AGM that includes voting - the time/date zone differences alone make this impractical
This is governed at the state level here. Not every state even allows remote election meetings, much less electing boards via asynchronous vote. On a cursory glance, Delaware does allow remote member meetings, but all of the documentation implies there has to be an actual meeting. In my state, you can only take action without a meeting by unanimous written consent of the board of directors, and I don't think that applies to elections. I don't know what Delaware has to say on non-meeting actions, or electing boards without a meeting. So that's part of why I suggested finding a template specific to Delaware.
posted by brook horse at 5:22 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]
Most American nonprofits are self-perpetuating boards, unfortunately. Awesome to hear that membership voting is common elsewhere. Should have specified, had some ramble about the weirdness of US nonprofit law that I deleted so then it wasn't clear I was talking specifically about the structure of US nonprofits (which is what Metafilter is). Metafilter should absolutely have a member-elected board, I just don't have examples of bylaws that incorporate that though some great examples have been shared.
It's not practical for an organisation like MetaFilter to hold an actual AGM that includes voting - the time/date zone differences alone make this impractical
This is governed at the state level here. Not every state even allows remote election meetings, much less electing boards via asynchronous vote. On a cursory glance, Delaware does allow remote member meetings, but all of the documentation implies there has to be an actual meeting. In my state, you can only take action without a meeting by unanimous written consent of the board of directors, and I don't think that applies to elections. I don't know what Delaware has to say on non-meeting actions, or electing boards without a meeting. So that's part of why I suggested finding a template specific to Delaware.
posted by brook horse at 5:22 PM on March 4 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I did wonder if this was dictated and it's definitely necessary to consider the relevant statutes. I do think it's still possible to combine asynchronous voting with an actual meeting by allowing members to submit votes in advance of the meeting and the meeting itself becomes largely a counting event, along with allowing any members present to cast a vote at the actual meeting. To fully comply with the relevant law, it may be necessary to conduct a meeting via Zoom or something, if only because the minutes of a meeting may be the required legal record of the voting outcome. Every organisation I've been involved in ensures the AGM is as brief as possible and only includes business that can only be conducted at an AGM, such as voting for officers (after the chair declaring all relevant positions vacant) and setting the date of the next AGM plus sometimes formal reports from office holders. The AGM is often conducted at the same place and immediately before or after a general meeting (or board meeting) for simplicity of organising etc.
The key thing, of course, is drafting the initial bylaws to set this up so that an initial board can be elected. This is a pretty critical and urgent thing, given there is something of a leadership vacuum in place at the moment.
posted by dg at 5:45 PM on March 4 [1 favorite]
The key thing, of course, is drafting the initial bylaws to set this up so that an initial board can be elected. This is a pretty critical and urgent thing, given there is something of a leadership vacuum in place at the moment.
posted by dg at 5:45 PM on March 4 [1 favorite]
Yep, I think there's a lot of possible ways we could make it work--just don't know how to fit it into exactly the shape of Delaware nonprofit requirements. I poked around a little looking for a Delaware nonprofit legal clinic but didn't come up with anything. Just a lot of nonprofits that give legal help, not legal help for nonprofits. My local university has special days for legal help specific to nonprofits, but I tried to look for legal schools in DE that might have that and couldn't find anything similar--maybe someone more familiar with the state could take a crack at it.
Fun fact, right after posting about the non-meeting actions I went into a board meeting and got asked, "brook horse, can we vote on this over e-mail after I find out [$details]?" and I was able to go, "I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EXACT STATUTE WORDING RIGHT HERE."
posted by brook horse at 6:30 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
Fun fact, right after posting about the non-meeting actions I went into a board meeting and got asked, "brook horse, can we vote on this over e-mail after I find out [$details]?" and I was able to go, "I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EXACT STATUTE WORDING RIGHT HERE."
posted by brook horse at 6:30 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
To sum up, the response from the interim board to the request for a timeline on the election is that it will be at some point after the new site launches (I'm glad we have a test site up now, but it seems likely that it will be many months before it actually launches). So, in short, the timeline is that it will be a while, but there is no specific date or goal here.
posted by ssg at 10:02 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]
posted by ssg at 10:02 AM on March 6 [1 favorite]
Don't despair! We have a call for a Poet Laureate election!
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:15 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:15 AM on March 6 [2 favorites]
Between the (questionable at best) decision tie voting for an actual board to the switchover to the new site, and the general pace of movement on the admin side, it looks to me like we are on track to have a real board by the end of 2025. But that's certainly not a given. I think it would be prudent to put together a timeline that includes all technical (new site + voting functionality) and administrative (e.g., interim bylaws so voting can take place) tasks so that we can actually tell if we are on track for having a real board by a set date (e.g., Nov. 1, 2025 which is one year after the foundation was created, or Dec. 31st or whatever). Having a real board in place before/by the end of the year will also give the first real board about a year to apply for non-profit status that is retroactive to the start of the foundation, while they are also doing many other things to help the site and ensure good governance of the foundation.
Just to put this in context, the interim board was established in October 2023 and was able to incorporate the foundation in November 2024. The testing version of the new site was delayed from September to March. These things take time. I think they probably take even more time if there isn't a calendar in place and tracking of all the necessary tasks. I think it would make sense to produce this calendar and get monthly updates on the progress from the persons responsible for implementing.
posted by snofoam at 12:32 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
Just to put this in context, the interim board was established in October 2023 and was able to incorporate the foundation in November 2024. The testing version of the new site was delayed from September to March. These things take time. I think they probably take even more time if there isn't a calendar in place and tracking of all the necessary tasks. I think it would make sense to produce this calendar and get monthly updates on the progress from the persons responsible for implementing.
posted by snofoam at 12:32 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
Holy crap, snofoam, the idea that we will still be waffling on about this for the rest of 2025 is horrifying!
I have no idea why anyone would tie a board election to a new website design, particularly one that still needs a lot of work before reaching the stated 'minimum viable product' status currently being targeted. It's not questionable; it's downright ridiculous. If we are still wandering around in the darkness here for another six months or more, I don't see that I'll be in a position to vote for anyone, to be honest.
posted by dg at 3:23 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
I have no idea why anyone would tie a board election to a new website design, particularly one that still needs a lot of work before reaching the stated 'minimum viable product' status currently being targeted. It's not questionable; it's downright ridiculous. If we are still wandering around in the darkness here for another six months or more, I don't see that I'll be in a position to vote for anyone, to be honest.
posted by dg at 3:23 PM on March 6 [7 favorites]
ah, the intial board is a two year term. one year after that election, another is held for a one-year term and each succeeding election would be for a one-year term. If this is correct I do see the logic in that.
One of my favorite non-profits became the exact opposite of its original purpose. I think dg has a good point about checks and balances. a member wide veto power vote, hate to say, built on the Roman Tribune, or the United States Congress would seem natural if there was some sort of shenanigans with board shifting and all that.
posted by clavdivs at 4:59 PM on March 6
One of my favorite non-profits became the exact opposite of its original purpose. I think dg has a good point about checks and balances. a member wide veto power vote, hate to say, built on the Roman Tribune, or the United States Congress would seem natural if there was some sort of shenanigans with board shifting and all that.
posted by clavdivs at 4:59 PM on March 6
I strongly, strongly agree with dg. There is no reason to delay elections until this new site is up and running in X months. Yes, bylaws need to be researched and adopted so that the organization is on a firm legal foundation for elections. That's... pretty much it. We have a voting system here on the site (or could use one of apparently any number of low-cost off-the-shelf solutions). We have to hash out how the voting is to happen and whatnot also, yeah.
But the top priorities really do need to be (1) transparent financial documents and (2) conducting, finally, an election that will see a clearly accountable board installed and ready to go.
This community is already a shadow of what it was three years ago, and it only gets worse with each passing month and contentious MeTa. The confusion about who is on what committee and where are minutes and what does this garbled financial statement mean and what happened with the pet tax wall and WHATEVER is not going to magically get better on its own.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:30 PM on March 6 [23 favorites]
But the top priorities really do need to be (1) transparent financial documents and (2) conducting, finally, an election that will see a clearly accountable board installed and ready to go.
This community is already a shadow of what it was three years ago, and it only gets worse with each passing month and contentious MeTa. The confusion about who is on what committee and where are minutes and what does this garbled financial statement mean and what happened with the pet tax wall and WHATEVER is not going to magically get better on its own.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:30 PM on March 6 [23 favorites]
I also strongly believe the best thing for MetaFilter now is to elect a board. I don't think we need to perfect the bylaws first. In fact, I think the approach of simply asking the existing board members to commit in advance to appointing the next board according to the results of the "unofficial" election is the best path forward because it allows us to have an election sooner rather than later and it allows the elected board to approve the new bylaws (or in fact bring them to the community for ratification).
Waiting for the new site to be ready is also not necessary. It's great if we can vote on the new site for future elections, but we shouldn't delay the elections for months while we wait for all the details of the new site to be finished (this kind of thing always takes longer than one thinks).
posted by ssg at 6:01 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
Waiting for the new site to be ready is also not necessary. It's great if we can vote on the new site for future elections, but we shouldn't delay the elections for months while we wait for all the details of the new site to be finished (this kind of thing always takes longer than one thinks).
posted by ssg at 6:01 PM on March 6 [8 favorites]
Yup, that entirely makes sense to me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:03 PM on March 6
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:03 PM on March 6
I thought we were waiting for the new site so we could use the voting system that was built into the new software. Isn’t that the reason?
posted by Vatnesine at 7:48 PM on March 6
posted by Vatnesine at 7:48 PM on March 6
If that is the case, though (and I think it may be?) it's not a good reason. We have other options, and unless there are other reasons which I'm not aware of, then I don't see why we have to wait months and months for this particular functionality to be built (again) on the new site which, I don't even see why doing that at all was such a big urgent thing anyway but whatever.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:04 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:04 PM on March 6 [4 favorites]
So, in response to:
When will elections for permanent board members for the MetaFilter Community Foundation take place?
If there are major roadblocks to holding elections, what are they?
Do we have any answers?
posted by dg at 9:44 PM on March 6 [6 favorites]
When will elections for permanent board members for the MetaFilter Community Foundation take place?
If there are major roadblocks to holding elections, what are they?
Do we have any answers?
posted by dg at 9:44 PM on March 6 [6 favorites]
The existing site has a built-in voting system that was used for the Steering Committee elections, which was used very successfully. Indeed in 2022 we were told:
Or indeed if there is some problem with it, why Frimble can't just fix that.
Given that this is now being used as a reason to delay elections indefinitely, when everyone here remembers it working fine before, this seems like a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be explained.
posted by automatronic at 2:15 AM on March 7 [18 favorites]
Shout out to frimble for pulling the voting subsite together! The Transition Team was sweating bullets about how to do voting and frimble was like "nah, I got you, gimme a little time".The only explanation I've been able to find for why we can't just use this again is in this comment by board member Rhaomi.
Thank you!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 18:10 on August 15, 2022
We've been looking into third-party voting platforms (warriorqueen and NotLost providing more input based on past experience). The key need there is for security and compatibility between the existing site member DB and the voting software, to prevent sockpuppets, leaking data, etc. Kirkaracha thinks that the new architecture can better handle doing it in-house via Laravel (the old site already a system used for SC stuff but it's super basic).Nobody has explained why the old system being "super basic" prevents it being used.
Or indeed if there is some problem with it, why Frimble can't just fix that.
Given that this is now being used as a reason to delay elections indefinitely, when everyone here remembers it working fine before, this seems like a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be explained.
posted by automatronic at 2:15 AM on March 7 [18 favorites]
The system used for the SC only supported one specific style of voting and that might not be what the current board finds suitable for ongoing elections or it might not fit the requirements for not-for-profit board elections under the law. It would be helpful if someone explained why it doesn't work the way it is now.
If the sense among the current board is that they should not be doing certain things because they are not the permanent board, that's a reason to elect the permanent board as soon as is reasonable which is probably before the new site software is available. But if they are not doing certain things because there are only so many hours in a day where they aren't working their actual jobs and they can't do all things at once, I think we have to recognize that an election is more likely to make that problem worse than it is to make it better.
The board members currently in place are part of a dwindling and everchanging group of people, and I am not sure if we tried to stand up a permanent board at this time, we would have enough volunteers to fill all the spots, never mind needing to elect them. Any election or upheaval in a volunteer organization is inevitably a time when current volunteers will drop out -- look at how few transition team members became steering committee members became foundation board members.
If the board wants to continue but needs to feel like they have an elected mandate, by all means, let's hold an election and give them one. If the board already feels empowered but just doesn't have time for everything, everywhere, all at once, let's be careful what we wish for.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:09 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
If the sense among the current board is that they should not be doing certain things because they are not the permanent board, that's a reason to elect the permanent board as soon as is reasonable which is probably before the new site software is available. But if they are not doing certain things because there are only so many hours in a day where they aren't working their actual jobs and they can't do all things at once, I think we have to recognize that an election is more likely to make that problem worse than it is to make it better.
The board members currently in place are part of a dwindling and everchanging group of people, and I am not sure if we tried to stand up a permanent board at this time, we would have enough volunteers to fill all the spots, never mind needing to elect them. Any election or upheaval in a volunteer organization is inevitably a time when current volunteers will drop out -- look at how few transition team members became steering committee members became foundation board members.
If the board wants to continue but needs to feel like they have an elected mandate, by all means, let's hold an election and give them one. If the board already feels empowered but just doesn't have time for everything, everywhere, all at once, let's be careful what we wish for.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:09 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
Adjacent question: have we determined how many people should be on the permanent board?
posted by bunton at 8:16 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
posted by bunton at 8:16 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
If the sense among the current board is that they should not be doing certain things because they are not the permanent board
What we've heard from the current board is that there will be no changes to the way the site works as far as staffing while the interim board is in place. Some people feel that's fine, others not so much. But electing a board gives the people who do want change (to site management or volunteer mods) at least a chance to open up that discussion.
Secondly, we continue to get confusing and contradictory financial statements. It's very difficult for members to get a good sense of the financial state of the site, but it does seem like donations are going down to some degree. Maybe everything is fine, maybe it isn't, but we need an elected board in place that is going to first make sure we have financials that actually make sense and reflect reality and then to act on that information if warranted.
Thirdly, I think we need a board that is willing to engage with the members here in MetaTalk. This post is a good example of what's missing. We got one comment from a board member that did not address the simple question in the post in any substantive way, then there was plenty of further discussion from members, but no comments and no answers from the board. I suspect they aren't even reading this. I totally understand the board has competing priorities, but I just don't see how we can have a community where neither the board nor site management are able to engage substantively in MetaTalk.
posted by ssg at 8:43 AM on March 7 [15 favorites]
What we've heard from the current board is that there will be no changes to the way the site works as far as staffing while the interim board is in place. Some people feel that's fine, others not so much. But electing a board gives the people who do want change (to site management or volunteer mods) at least a chance to open up that discussion.
Secondly, we continue to get confusing and contradictory financial statements. It's very difficult for members to get a good sense of the financial state of the site, but it does seem like donations are going down to some degree. Maybe everything is fine, maybe it isn't, but we need an elected board in place that is going to first make sure we have financials that actually make sense and reflect reality and then to act on that information if warranted.
Thirdly, I think we need a board that is willing to engage with the members here in MetaTalk. This post is a good example of what's missing. We got one comment from a board member that did not address the simple question in the post in any substantive way, then there was plenty of further discussion from members, but no comments and no answers from the board. I suspect they aren't even reading this. I totally understand the board has competing priorities, but I just don't see how we can have a community where neither the board nor site management are able to engage substantively in MetaTalk.
posted by ssg at 8:43 AM on March 7 [15 favorites]
There is no reason to delay elections until this new site is up and running in X months. There is no reason to delay elections until this new site is up and running in X months. There is no reason to delay elections until this new site is up and running in X months. There is no reason to delay elections until this new site is up and running in X months. There is no reason to delay elections until this new site is up and running in X months.
Etc. until it's heard by site managers.
What we've heard from the current board is that there will be no changes to the way the site works as far as staffing while the interim board is in place. Some people feel that's fine, others not so much. But electing a board gives the people who do want change (to site management or volunteer mods) at least a chance to open up that discussion.
Amen. That loup is still involved in any capacity in the management of this site is just...*shakes head*
posted by catspajamas at 10:51 AM on March 7 [5 favorites]
Etc. until it's heard by site managers.
What we've heard from the current board is that there will be no changes to the way the site works as far as staffing while the interim board is in place. Some people feel that's fine, others not so much. But electing a board gives the people who do want change (to site management or volunteer mods) at least a chance to open up that discussion.
Amen. That loup is still involved in any capacity in the management of this site is just...*shakes head*
posted by catspajamas at 10:51 AM on March 7 [5 favorites]
I am also not sure why we need to connect the new board with the new site infrastructure. I would ask the interim board to provide some context.
posted by samthemander at 11:07 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
posted by samthemander at 11:07 AM on March 7 [2 favorites]
Do the interim board members need short-term support in establishing a Board Selection Committee? Maybe 4-6 people who can support with drafting board terms, election processes, and timeline? And then the Interim Board can review/approve.
posted by samthemander at 12:02 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
posted by samthemander at 12:02 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
Do the interim board members need short-term support in establishing a Board Selection Committee?
In the December site update, 1adam12 said:
Calls for volunteers for at least three committees will be coming soon - moderation, elections, and member outreach. The moderation part is already in process.
In the February site update, I asked if there was any update on that.
I've not seen a response or any further news.
posted by automatronic at 1:08 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
In the December site update, 1adam12 said:
Calls for volunteers for at least three committees will be coming soon - moderation, elections, and member outreach. The moderation part is already in process.
In the February site update, I asked if there was any update on that.
I've not seen a response or any further news.
posted by automatronic at 1:08 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
automatronic: "Nobody has explained why the old system being "super basic" prevents it being used."
The SC poll was literally just "count the tally and see what's biggest." There were no safeguards against sockpuppets or spammers or brigading because there didn't need to be -- it was just an ad-hoc advisory group, and if anything malicious happened, Jessamyn as the owner could put a stop to it.
The MCF, on the other hand, is a registered legal entity that directly owns the site and controls its funds and other assets. If people with bad intentions took control of it, they could drain the bank accounts, sell the site to an AI content farm, or just shutter it out of spite. That might sound paranoid, but there's a long history of weird creeps who have hate-stalked the community for years and even criminally harassed mods and users IRL. Exactly the type who'd love a hostile takeover that would let them pursue grudges and abuse the site.
As founders and stewards of the foundation, it's our responsibility to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. That means properly registering people using info in the member DB to ensure no ballot-stuffing from sockpuppets, bulk fee-waiver-ers, Scott Adams lighting the beacon for a passel of dormant boyzone accounts, etc. The best way to do that is to keep the membership and voting process in-house, using a secure and trustworthy system designed by our dev to meet our needs. Kirkaracha believes we can do that with the new site and I trust him.
In the meantime, site management isn't abandoned -- we're all doing what we can to maintain the business/legal end, respond to issues, and improve how the site works. And we're more than happy to empower volunteers who want to help in any of these areas, which has already happened re: finding big hosting savings and establishing the mod oversight group. If you're interested in participating or have an idea, just message us.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:28 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
The SC poll was literally just "count the tally and see what's biggest." There were no safeguards against sockpuppets or spammers or brigading because there didn't need to be -- it was just an ad-hoc advisory group, and if anything malicious happened, Jessamyn as the owner could put a stop to it.
The MCF, on the other hand, is a registered legal entity that directly owns the site and controls its funds and other assets. If people with bad intentions took control of it, they could drain the bank accounts, sell the site to an AI content farm, or just shutter it out of spite. That might sound paranoid, but there's a long history of weird creeps who have hate-stalked the community for years and even criminally harassed mods and users IRL. Exactly the type who'd love a hostile takeover that would let them pursue grudges and abuse the site.
As founders and stewards of the foundation, it's our responsibility to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. That means properly registering people using info in the member DB to ensure no ballot-stuffing from sockpuppets, bulk fee-waiver-ers, Scott Adams lighting the beacon for a passel of dormant boyzone accounts, etc. The best way to do that is to keep the membership and voting process in-house, using a secure and trustworthy system designed by our dev to meet our needs. Kirkaracha believes we can do that with the new site and I trust him.
In the meantime, site management isn't abandoned -- we're all doing what we can to maintain the business/legal end, respond to issues, and improve how the site works. And we're more than happy to empower volunteers who want to help in any of these areas, which has already happened re: finding big hosting savings and establishing the mod oversight group. If you're interested in participating or have an idea, just message us.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:28 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
what issues do you see yourselves as having responded to? because boy, have there ever been a lot of issues that have had neither board nor mod response.
Also, this sounds like some "perfect is the enemy of good" shit. Export a spreadsheet of every user number, make a Google form, and ignore any votes with a duplicate or missing user number.
Anyway, financial mismanagement (miscounted donations, savings opportunities not acted on for years) and weird staff behaviours seem to be much higher risks to the community than hostile action. Given that you've said you won't address either without a new board, this seems like a very high-risk approach with benefits that mostly seem overhyped.
posted by sagc at 1:39 PM on March 7 [12 favorites]
Also, this sounds like some "perfect is the enemy of good" shit. Export a spreadsheet of every user number, make a Google form, and ignore any votes with a duplicate or missing user number.
Anyway, financial mismanagement (miscounted donations, savings opportunities not acted on for years) and weird staff behaviours seem to be much higher risks to the community than hostile action. Given that you've said you won't address either without a new board, this seems like a very high-risk approach with benefits that mostly seem overhyped.
posted by sagc at 1:39 PM on March 7 [12 favorites]
believe i can be useful in the endeavor
I do and sometimes I have questions and if you don't mind, I would like to memail you because I'm starting to write them down. I'd rather not clog up the post, which I think has been very fruitful, with what I may have overlooked.
As to terms for the board duration.
The intial board is a two year term. one year after that election, another is held for a one-year term and each succeeding election would be for a one-year term. is this correct.
if so, I see that as logical and withdrawal objection.
posted by clavdivs at 1:50 PM on March 7
I do and sometimes I have questions and if you don't mind, I would like to memail you because I'm starting to write them down. I'd rather not clog up the post, which I think has been very fruitful, with what I may have overlooked.
As to terms for the board duration.
The intial board is a two year term. one year after that election, another is held for a one-year term and each succeeding election would be for a one-year term. is this correct.
if so, I see that as logical and withdrawal objection.
posted by clavdivs at 1:50 PM on March 7
Speaking as a guy who makes a living migrating complex websites from one platform to another, tying the election to the cut-over of the new site strikes me as a horrible idea.
These things always take longer than expected. Like any long project, predicting the finish is extremely hard, and the unexpected can happen mid-stream (The people working on the new site change jobs. Funding issues. A previously unknown technical hurdle comes up). The definition of 'done' can be up to great debate (All the old data moved over? Traffic? Old site taken down? New site working for 30 days?). And on and on.
To tie the critically needed election of the full, "permanent" board to an unknown, unknowable, and likely shifting date is a recipe for disaster.
Pick a date, figure out how to count the votes, and go. Please!!!!
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:09 PM on March 7 [24 favorites]
These things always take longer than expected. Like any long project, predicting the finish is extremely hard, and the unexpected can happen mid-stream (The people working on the new site change jobs. Funding issues. A previously unknown technical hurdle comes up). The definition of 'done' can be up to great debate (All the old data moved over? Traffic? Old site taken down? New site working for 30 days?). And on and on.
To tie the critically needed election of the full, "permanent" board to an unknown, unknowable, and likely shifting date is a recipe for disaster.
Pick a date, figure out how to count the votes, and go. Please!!!!
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:09 PM on March 7 [24 favorites]
FWIW, if you want to use the new site for voting, you don't have to wait till the whole thing is in place. You just need the voting part. (And migration of usernames/passwords, but that should be minor.)
posted by zompist at 2:17 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
posted by zompist at 2:17 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
The suggestion, as I understand it, wasn't for the election to happen once the new site is live.
The suggestion was that the election would happen once the new site goes live, and the single developer subsequently finds time to code up a voting platform.
Given the need for holidays, sick leave, emergencies of whatever nature, the challenging nature of managing software development, and the difficulty in making timely management decisions, I would not be surprised in the least if this turned out to be two years away.
Would the board be comfortable with a delay of two years before elections? If not, how long is too long, and what's the plan if "too long" arrives?
posted by quacks like a duck at 2:25 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
The suggestion was that the election would happen once the new site goes live, and the single developer subsequently finds time to code up a voting platform.
Given the need for holidays, sick leave, emergencies of whatever nature, the challenging nature of managing software development, and the difficulty in making timely management decisions, I would not be surprised in the least if this turned out to be two years away.
Would the board be comfortable with a delay of two years before elections? If not, how long is too long, and what's the plan if "too long" arrives?
posted by quacks like a duck at 2:25 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
With about $800 and a CSV of member emails we could setup elections at OpaVote.
OpaVote is a secure online voting platform that makes it easy to run elections at a fraction of the usual cost. We're the leading provider of ranked choice elections, which help achieve more democratic outcomes by better representing the will of your voters.
Why do we need our own site?
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:32 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
OpaVote is a secure online voting platform that makes it easy to run elections at a fraction of the usual cost. We're the leading provider of ranked choice elections, which help achieve more democratic outcomes by better representing the will of your voters.
Why do we need our own site?
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:32 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
Rhaomi: I really appreciate the additional context on why the interim board recommends waiting until a more formal voting platform is available. Thank you.
posted by samthemander at 2:33 PM on March 7
posted by samthemander at 2:33 PM on March 7
I'm sorry but what exactly is a "dormant boyzone account" and why would it be disqualified from voting?
If someone cares enough to go and encourage dormant members to return to the site and vote, then those votes should be perfectly valid.
A lot of people have left the site for a lot of reasons over many years, and one of the main goals of switching to a community-led model was to help encourage some of those people to come back.
How are you going to police who encouraged them to return?
posted by automatronic at 2:36 PM on March 7 [11 favorites]
If someone cares enough to go and encourage dormant members to return to the site and vote, then those votes should be perfectly valid.
A lot of people have left the site for a lot of reasons over many years, and one of the main goals of switching to a community-led model was to help encourage some of those people to come back.
How are you going to police who encouraged them to return?
posted by automatronic at 2:36 PM on March 7 [11 favorites]
clavdivs: I'm not sure whether you meant me, but you're welcome to memail me if so.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:51 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:51 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
Also, as another professional web developer, i am 100000000% cosigning Frayed Knot, above. It is a very bad plan to wait elections on the new site being complete & launched.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:53 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:53 PM on March 7 [10 favorites]
Here's a suggestion to hold an election without waiting for a new site or making things complicated: Post a MetaTalk thread where people can register to vote by commenting. Everyone who comments in the thread is either sent a ballot through one of the many online voting platforms that are available (like OpaVote, suggested above) or if we don't want to use such a system, is sent a unique code that can be used to verify their vote through a generic form (Google Forms, etc).
I'm sure it would be trivial for frimble to generate a CSV with the required details for everyone who comments in a particular thread.
New sites almost always take much longer to launch than one thinks. And in this case, the demo was originally supposed to be available five months ago! Let's not wait for the new site to hold an election.
posted by ssg at 3:07 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
I'm sure it would be trivial for frimble to generate a CSV with the required details for everyone who comments in a particular thread.
New sites almost always take much longer to launch than one thinks. And in this case, the demo was originally supposed to be available five months ago! Let's not wait for the new site to hold an election.
posted by ssg at 3:07 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
OV was one of the options we looked at. But it would be an ongoing cost that would require members to register on a third-party platform, plus either opening up access to the member database or figuring out how to manually screen for duplicates, false registrations, etc. across platforms. Doing it internally as part of the site is safer and more flexible.
automatronic: "If someone cares enough to go and encourage dormant members to return to the site and vote, then those votes should be perfectly valid."
Everybody wants to encourage member growth, but organically and with people that align with our guidelines and values, not brigading by people who loathe the site and want to fuck with it or transform it for the worse. Like, I'm sure a decent number of ex-members from the aughts have gone the MAGA/MRA/transphobic/cryptobro/etc. route. A basic straw poll could be pretty easily gamed by one larger hostile site (KF? Twitter?) encouraging flounced members to come back or make sockpuppets for the purposes of taking over a "woke" target. It might sound far-fetched if you haven't been personally harassed by people like this, but they exist and they have a surprising amount of time on their hands.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:11 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
automatronic: "If someone cares enough to go and encourage dormant members to return to the site and vote, then those votes should be perfectly valid."
Everybody wants to encourage member growth, but organically and with people that align with our guidelines and values, not brigading by people who loathe the site and want to fuck with it or transform it for the worse. Like, I'm sure a decent number of ex-members from the aughts have gone the MAGA/MRA/transphobic/cryptobro/etc. route. A basic straw poll could be pretty easily gamed by one larger hostile site (KF? Twitter?) encouraging flounced members to come back or make sockpuppets for the purposes of taking over a "woke" target. It might sound far-fetched if you haven't been personally harassed by people like this, but they exist and they have a surprising amount of time on their hands.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:11 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
people that align with our guidelines and values
Whose guidelines and values?
A basic straw poll could be pretty easily gamed etc etc etc
Only allow active accounts created before 1/1/2025 to vote. "Active" means at least one post/comment over the past x months / years. One vote per person.
Or something like that.
brigading by people who loathe the site and want to fuck with it or transform it for the worse
Eh. The subreddit isn't that bad.
posted by Diskeater at 3:20 PM on March 7 [14 favorites]
Whose guidelines and values?
A basic straw poll could be pretty easily gamed etc etc etc
Only allow active accounts created before 1/1/2025 to vote. "Active" means at least one post/comment over the past x months / years. One vote per person.
Or something like that.
brigading by people who loathe the site and want to fuck with it or transform it for the worse
Eh. The subreddit isn't that bad.
posted by Diskeater at 3:20 PM on March 7 [14 favorites]
But it would be an ongoing cost that would require members to register on a third-party platform
I think everyone here is perfectly happy for the next election after the upcoming one to be run internally on the new site. Sounds great! So let's not worry about ongoing costs, let's just talk about the cost of this election (which is not going to be a large enough amount to worry about on a third-party platform). And something like OpaVote does not require users to register in order to vote.
posted by ssg at 3:29 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
I think everyone here is perfectly happy for the next election after the upcoming one to be run internally on the new site. Sounds great! So let's not worry about ongoing costs, let's just talk about the cost of this election (which is not going to be a large enough amount to worry about on a third-party platform). And something like OpaVote does not require users to register in order to vote.
posted by ssg at 3:29 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
Rhaomi, how are you going to distinguish between someone who drifted away and is excited to be back on new community -led site vs. those who have the wrong views and can't vote?
How do you propose preventing *current* transphobes from voting?
But, to modify my proposal from before, now you'd have to filter the list of valid-voter user IDs confirm both recent activity and a non-dormant account. Quelle horreur! Still doesn't sound beyond the reach of a spreadsheet and Google forms.
What's the longest the board is prepared to wait until holding elections? Is there any deadline other than "once another piece of bespoke software is built"?
no wheel too good for MeFi to reinvent, no deck chairs too forgone to shuffle.
posted by sagc at 3:32 PM on March 7 [17 favorites]
How do you propose preventing *current* transphobes from voting?
But, to modify my proposal from before, now you'd have to filter the list of valid-voter user IDs confirm both recent activity and a non-dormant account. Quelle horreur! Still doesn't sound beyond the reach of a spreadsheet and Google forms.
What's the longest the board is prepared to wait until holding elections? Is there any deadline other than "once another piece of bespoke software is built"?
no wheel too good for MeFi to reinvent, no deck chairs too forgone to shuffle.
posted by sagc at 3:32 PM on March 7 [17 favorites]
Let's indulge the doomsday scenario for a moment.
Let's say the election gets rigged by a brigading horde of MAGA cryptobros led by Scott Adams who have all been silently waiting for years for this one shining moment of marginally reduced vigilance in order to organize and attack. What actually happens to Metafilter in that situation? They immediately snatch the keys and lock Metafilter's door then hold them up above your head going neener neener neener?
Surely if the elections were rigged to that extreme degree such that 100% of the board is a brand new account or decade+ silent former shithead, it would be obvious enough to be able to say nah mate that didn't work and scrap the whole thing for a do over. It's not a constitutional crisis, it's a small community weblog.
posted by phunniemee at 3:48 PM on March 7 [17 favorites]
Let's say the election gets rigged by a brigading horde of MAGA cryptobros led by Scott Adams who have all been silently waiting for years for this one shining moment of marginally reduced vigilance in order to organize and attack. What actually happens to Metafilter in that situation? They immediately snatch the keys and lock Metafilter's door then hold them up above your head going neener neener neener?
Surely if the elections were rigged to that extreme degree such that 100% of the board is a brand new account or decade+ silent former shithead, it would be obvious enough to be able to say nah mate that didn't work and scrap the whole thing for a do over. It's not a constitutional crisis, it's a small community weblog.
posted by phunniemee at 3:48 PM on March 7 [17 favorites]
In membership voting typically you don’t just remain a member forever, you are only a member if you pay the annual membership dues. In this case it would be easy enough to say only people have posted in the past year from X date get to vote. People who want to come back to the site but missed the annual “certification” can vote next year. But having this year’s board election only give voting rights to people who did something to indicate membership in the past year would be very standard. The same would be true of eligibility to run as a board member.
posted by brook horse at 4:15 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 4:15 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
There are no membership dues, though.
So community members who haven't posted in a while are still members in good standing.
And since the site hasn't held any form of elections since 2022, the primary means for people to protest against site management has been to stop posting to the site.
If you exclude all of those people from voting then you're effectively disenfranchising everyone who's expressed their dissatisfaction with current management.
posted by automatronic at 4:46 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
So community members who haven't posted in a while are still members in good standing.
And since the site hasn't held any form of elections since 2022, the primary means for people to protest against site management has been to stop posting to the site.
If you exclude all of those people from voting then you're effectively disenfranchising everyone who's expressed their dissatisfaction with current management.
posted by automatronic at 4:46 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
If you exclude all of those people from voting then you're effectively disenfranchising everyone who's expressed their dissatisfaction with current management.
No one will be disenfranchised.
If (big if) the criteria for voting is "any member before 1/1/25 that has posted at least once in the past 12 months", that would include everyone that cares about the site except for, I don't know, ten people?
And if those people are worried about losing their vote, they could go right now to FanFare and post a "wow this show sucks" comment in any thread. Bingo! Democracy restored.
posted by Diskeater at 5:02 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
No one will be disenfranchised.
If (big if) the criteria for voting is "any member before 1/1/25 that has posted at least once in the past 12 months", that would include everyone that cares about the site except for, I don't know, ten people?
And if those people are worried about losing their vote, they could go right now to FanFare and post a "wow this show sucks" comment in any thread. Bingo! Democracy restored.
posted by Diskeater at 5:02 PM on March 7 [2 favorites]
since the site hasn't held any form of elections since 2022, the primary means for people to protest against site management has been to stop posting to the site
There's nothing stopping us from making the cut-off date 2022 to capture those folks. Or hell, even earlier.
people that align with our guidelines and values
Oh, do you mean we actually have documented values now? Great!
Where can I find them? Who put them together? I assume the community was involved in putting them together - was there a MeTa I missed?
Let's say the election gets rigged by a brigading horde of MAGA cryptobros led by Scott Adams who have all been silently waiting for years for this one shining moment of marginally reduced vigilance in order to organize and attack. What actually happens to Metafilter in that situation?
Frankly (and to agree with phynniemee) this is not a voting platform problem. This is a voting process validity problem - precisely why democracies having specific independent trusted bodies overseeing and validating the results. Only once the vote is valid should any 'keys' be handed over.
posted by coriolisdave at 5:09 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
There's nothing stopping us from making the cut-off date 2022 to capture those folks. Or hell, even earlier.
people that align with our guidelines and values
Oh, do you mean we actually have documented values now? Great!
Where can I find them? Who put them together? I assume the community was involved in putting them together - was there a MeTa I missed?
Let's say the election gets rigged by a brigading horde of MAGA cryptobros led by Scott Adams who have all been silently waiting for years for this one shining moment of marginally reduced vigilance in order to organize and attack. What actually happens to Metafilter in that situation?
Frankly (and to agree with phynniemee) this is not a voting platform problem. This is a voting process validity problem - precisely why democracies having specific independent trusted bodies overseeing and validating the results. Only once the vote is valid should any 'keys' be handed over.
posted by coriolisdave at 5:09 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
I know that it seems ridiculous to postpone elections until a new site with secure election functionality is live, but I think almost everyone here is underestimating the likelihood that paranoid election sabotage fantasies might actually happen. What we actually need to do is not just wait for the new site, but also design an elaborate, ungameable voter registration process that will filter out spurious infiltrators, storytelling spammers and former members who don’t share our values and wish to pervert the resources of the foundation to their own nefarious ends. Realistically, this process will take longer than developing and launching the new site with secure voting functionality, so waiting for the new site won’t delay anything. Thank you for your patience!
posted by snofoam at 5:13 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 5:13 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]
Withholding your participation in an organization, even in protest, typically means giving up membership rights. The word “membership” in a nonprofit is different from the way we use “member” of a website. Anyone who has an account could be categorized as an “affiliate” or “supporter,” but that doesn’t make them a member of the nonprofit, legally. Membership is usually defined by some kind of annual participation, whether that’s attending at least one event or paying membership dues or anything else, but if you haven’t participated in a nonprofit organization in the past year—even for very legitimate reasons—you typically are not eligible for membership and are instead an affiliate.
posted by brook horse at 5:31 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 5:31 PM on March 7 [5 favorites]
Adjacent question: have we determined how many people should be on the permanent board?
Diagonal to that. Will Jessamyn, Josh and Matt be given slots on the board?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:32 PM on March 7
Diagonal to that. Will Jessamyn, Josh and Matt be given slots on the board?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:32 PM on March 7
Jessamyn should be nowhere near the leadership of this website ever again. And I LIKE Jessamyn. But she has proven herself to be a truly terrible leader.
posted by bowbeacon at 5:40 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 5:40 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
I used OpaVote a few months back to vote in the board elections of a local land trust I'm a member of. I didn't have to register an account; I (and all other voting members) received an email that contained the voting link, then clicked through to a multiple choice ballot. Their membership is a little less than a thousand (many of whom are aging and less tech-savvy than any Metafilterian), and I guarantee they verified OpaVote was legally compliant for board elections before using it.
posted by knucklebones at 5:47 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
posted by knucklebones at 5:47 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
Oh, also, quorum. Metafilter activity stats say there are 47k registered users. If all users have member voting rights, then even a quorum requirement of only 10% would require 4,700 people to vote or no action could be taken. We have less than 3,000 active users in a given month. There needs to be some standard for current participation or we’ll never make quorum.
posted by brook horse at 5:58 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 5:58 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]
The chances of brigading or whatever leading to a hostile takeover of Metafilter is much, much lower than the chances of bullshit reasons why "we can't do this until XYZ happens" leads to this site fully dying under the weight of its own bikeshedding.
Also, the simplest way to safeguard against this -- as has been suggested previously and I haven't seen anyone even trying to make a counter-argument against -- is that it's probably actually easier to have the formal selection of board members made by members of the existing board. Now, we haven't, still, gotten any clarity as to what the actual bylaws of the non-profit are as it stands now (which is its own problem) but I assume that the current board can basically decide to ratify the results of the election (or, if some weird thing does happen, could nullify it and justify their decision to the community).
If people have good reasons or arguments against any of these things, then fine. Say them. I think Rhaomi is the only board member who's spoken up in this thread (though I may be wrong, and that also goes to the fact that it's not easy to remember who is on what committee or board), and I appreciate that they have participated, but that being said the arguments they have put forward are not persuasive to me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on March 7 [19 favorites]
Also, the simplest way to safeguard against this -- as has been suggested previously and I haven't seen anyone even trying to make a counter-argument against -- is that it's probably actually easier to have the formal selection of board members made by members of the existing board. Now, we haven't, still, gotten any clarity as to what the actual bylaws of the non-profit are as it stands now (which is its own problem) but I assume that the current board can basically decide to ratify the results of the election (or, if some weird thing does happen, could nullify it and justify their decision to the community).
If people have good reasons or arguments against any of these things, then fine. Say them. I think Rhaomi is the only board member who's spoken up in this thread (though I may be wrong, and that also goes to the fact that it's not easy to remember who is on what committee or board), and I appreciate that they have participated, but that being said the arguments they have put forward are not persuasive to me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on March 7 [19 favorites]
I am 0% concerned about a cabal of long-lost boyzone commenters taking over the MetaFilter board, but I am more than 0% concerned about an unelected interim board using theoretical concerns about said cabal to justify delaying the election until some undefined point in the future.
Oh, also, quorum.
I get that these kinds of details are interesting to a select few who are really into rules (and that's fine, no judgement), but we really don't need to invent new problems here. We can just let the people who want to vote cast their vote for board members. We don't need to make a rule about quorum. We're talking about the initial election for a small non-profit here.
posted by ssg at 6:27 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
Oh, also, quorum.
I get that these kinds of details are interesting to a select few who are really into rules (and that's fine, no judgement), but we really don't need to invent new problems here. We can just let the people who want to vote cast their vote for board members. We don't need to make a rule about quorum. We're talking about the initial election for a small non-profit here.
posted by ssg at 6:27 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
I get that these kinds of details are interesting to a select few who are really into rules (and that's fine, no judgement), but we really don't need to invent new problems here. We can just let the people who want to vote cast their vote for board members. We don't need to make a rule about quorum. We're talking about the initial election for a small non-profit here.
ssg: i get where you're coming from but i don't think brook horse is trying to be a rules-lawyer. Nonprofits do in fact have legal requirements they have to meet in order for their board elections to be valid, and it would be a hell of a thing if the whole nonprofit transition failed because of shit like this.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:37 PM on March 7 [9 favorites]
ssg: i get where you're coming from but i don't think brook horse is trying to be a rules-lawyer. Nonprofits do in fact have legal requirements they have to meet in order for their board elections to be valid, and it would be a hell of a thing if the whole nonprofit transition failed because of shit like this.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:37 PM on March 7 [9 favorites]
We're all kind of playing in the dark here because no one has yet posted the actual bylaws, but that being said the board will have some way to name new members, and they can easily commit to naming new members in accordance with the results of the election.
I'm happy to be corrected if wrong, but I don't think persons with a Metafilter account have any legal standing whatsoever at this point. As far as the law is concerned, I'm just some person who paid five dollars to Metafilter in 2010 in order to get posting and commenting privileges.
So questions of a quorum of the overall electorate, while they're totally legit in terms of the goal of democratic decision making, aren't really an issue in terms of the strict legality here.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:54 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
I'm happy to be corrected if wrong, but I don't think persons with a Metafilter account have any legal standing whatsoever at this point. As far as the law is concerned, I'm just some person who paid five dollars to Metafilter in 2010 in order to get posting and commenting privileges.
So questions of a quorum of the overall electorate, while they're totally legit in terms of the goal of democratic decision making, aren't really an issue in terms of the strict legality here.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:54 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
Yeah, we very specifically have to make a rule about quorum because if we don’t specify in the articles of incorporation or bylaws, then (in Delaware) it defaults to 30% of membership is legally required in order to take an action such as an election.
We might be able to define quorum as something ridiculously low, I don’t know about that, but we do have to define it in the bylaws or articles of incorporation.
tivalasvegas: That has to be defined in the bylaws too. If the bylaws say that the board is self-perpetuating, and that members have no voting rights, then we can have the interim board elect the remaining board and the question of how to hold them to the community’s will (however that is determined or defined) is a social rather than legal one.
If the bylaws say we are a membership organization where members have voting rights, then we have to define all of that or it defaults to the Delaware “template” for nonprofits and the board of directors legally can’t elect the next board without a plurality of the quorum.
The fact that Rhaomi is concerned that we could be brigaded suggests to me the interim board is envisioning members having voting rights. If they aren’t, it doesn’t matter because the board of directors can legally ignore the vote entirely and elect or not elect who they wish.
So, either we have a self-perpetuating board and brigading doesn’t matter, or we have members with voting rights and have to define things like quorums and eligibility for membership. Either way that needs to be laid out in the bylaws.
Trust me, I wish it were simpler than this but becoming a nonprofit means Metafilter now has specific legal requirements for how it operates, especially if it’s going to seek 501c3 status. This is not legal advice, of course, but I have sought legal advice for establishing bylaws for a 501c3 before and this is where my points are coming from.
posted by brook horse at 7:06 PM on March 7 [15 favorites]
We might be able to define quorum as something ridiculously low, I don’t know about that, but we do have to define it in the bylaws or articles of incorporation.
tivalasvegas: That has to be defined in the bylaws too. If the bylaws say that the board is self-perpetuating, and that members have no voting rights, then we can have the interim board elect the remaining board and the question of how to hold them to the community’s will (however that is determined or defined) is a social rather than legal one.
If the bylaws say we are a membership organization where members have voting rights, then we have to define all of that or it defaults to the Delaware “template” for nonprofits and the board of directors legally can’t elect the next board without a plurality of the quorum.
The fact that Rhaomi is concerned that we could be brigaded suggests to me the interim board is envisioning members having voting rights. If they aren’t, it doesn’t matter because the board of directors can legally ignore the vote entirely and elect or not elect who they wish.
So, either we have a self-perpetuating board and brigading doesn’t matter, or we have members with voting rights and have to define things like quorums and eligibility for membership. Either way that needs to be laid out in the bylaws.
Trust me, I wish it were simpler than this but becoming a nonprofit means Metafilter now has specific legal requirements for how it operates, especially if it’s going to seek 501c3 status. This is not legal advice, of course, but I have sought legal advice for establishing bylaws for a 501c3 before and this is where my points are coming from.
posted by brook horse at 7:06 PM on March 7 [15 favorites]
it defaults to 30% of membership is legally required in order to take an action such as an election.
Are all people with user accounts on metafilter.com members of the Metafilter nonprofit? I never signed up for that organization.
posted by dusty potato at 7:23 PM on March 7
Are all people with user accounts on metafilter.com members of the Metafilter nonprofit? I never signed up for that organization.
posted by dusty potato at 7:23 PM on March 7
Right, that’s exactly what I’m saying—we need to define what membership is if we are going to be an organization with voting members. Some users have said all user accounts should have voting rights, but that would mean making all users members of the nonprofit, which is a problem.
posted by brook horse at 7:27 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 7:27 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
I appreciate where you are coming from, brook horse, but it feels like we are just speculating in a vacuum here, because we still have not seen the current bylaws of the organization or any draft bylaws that the board may adopt in the future and we have no idea what kind of structure we have to work with. Maybe quorum is an issue, maybe it isn't.
We have so many theoretical problems here in this thread and very little definitive information. Speculation is moving in to fill the information vacuum, as we've seen in so many MetaTalks recently.
posted by ssg at 7:28 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
We have so many theoretical problems here in this thread and very little definitive information. Speculation is moving in to fill the information vacuum, as we've seen in so many MetaTalks recently.
posted by ssg at 7:28 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
Is it actually possible to define membership in a way that opts people in who don't even know the organization exists? (Asking genuinely, I have no clue.)
posted by dusty potato at 7:30 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by dusty potato at 7:30 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
ssg: I’m not sure if I’m being clear: there are legal requirements that bylaws have to have for nonprofits. We cannot have an election that legally puts in a new board of directors until we 1) determine whether the board will be self-perpetuating or voted in by members (and in that case defined membership) and 2) defined quorum in either case. Regardless of the rest of the structure, those two definitions are required and will be issues Metafilter as a nonprofit will have to grapple with no matter what.
Based on Rhaomi’s concerns, the planned structure is membership voting (because otherwise there is no risk of bad actors getting in power via brigading as the board isn’t beholden to the result of the vote of members don’t have voting rights). Their definition of membership will need to take quorum into account, because an overly broad definition will make it impossible to hold elections. That’s all I’m trying to highlight. Having an election that has no legal weight because we didn’t meet quorum would only further drag out this process.
dusty potato: I would think not but I couldn’t find any specific regulation on the topic. But yeah, my gut feeling is at minimum we would need to say there is some sort of process to confirm that someone agrees to be a member of the nonprofit specifically. Ethically if not legally speaking.
posted by brook horse at 7:51 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
Based on Rhaomi’s concerns, the planned structure is membership voting (because otherwise there is no risk of bad actors getting in power via brigading as the board isn’t beholden to the result of the vote of members don’t have voting rights). Their definition of membership will need to take quorum into account, because an overly broad definition will make it impossible to hold elections. That’s all I’m trying to highlight. Having an election that has no legal weight because we didn’t meet quorum would only further drag out this process.
dusty potato: I would think not but I couldn’t find any specific regulation on the topic. But yeah, my gut feeling is at minimum we would need to say there is some sort of process to confirm that someone agrees to be a member of the nonprofit specifically. Ethically if not legally speaking.
posted by brook horse at 7:51 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
You could just make the voting infrastructure available to all users of metafilter.com, and have the process state that by voting as a metafilter user, you are joining the nonprofit as a member. That way quorum for the first election would be 100%.
Now that I think about it, I actually participate in a nonprofit that exists primarily for a series of community events, and each year at one of these events they just say "we're having our annual meeting and voting on the board, anyone who wants to stick around and vote is a member."
posted by dusty potato at 7:59 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
Now that I think about it, I actually participate in a nonprofit that exists primarily for a series of community events, and each year at one of these events they just say "we're having our annual meeting and voting on the board, anyone who wants to stick around and vote is a member."
posted by dusty potato at 7:59 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
That’s a great idea! As long as it’s laid out in our bylaws, we can do that. It doesn’t address the brigading issue Rhaomi is concerned about though, which is where the membership conversation started. So we would also have to define under what conditions membership could be terminated or someone deemed ineligible to vote. Unless we decide there isn’t enough of a risk for this first election to be concerned with that.
Anyone know how the Hugos handled the sad puppies? I don’t have the energy to dig through the history of that nonsense but if they put in place any safeguards then we could look at those.
posted by brook horse at 8:18 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
Anyone know how the Hugos handled the sad puppies? I don’t have the energy to dig through the history of that nonsense but if they put in place any safeguards then we could look at those.
posted by brook horse at 8:18 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
So I think the question is: When are the bylaws going to be finalized and available? I remember a previous discussion talking about how they needed to define what a voting member was.
posted by lapis at 8:21 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by lapis at 8:21 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
Here is where some of that previous conversation happened, about what voting membership would require, in October.
posted by lapis at 8:22 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
posted by lapis at 8:22 PM on March 7 [1 favorite]
I don't really understand the "brigading" concern. I mean, I get the due diligence of considering the issue and then moving on, but it seems basically trivial to me. If the idea is that a hostile party will literally register new accounts en masse to shift the board election, just set a membership cutoff date for eligibility or something. If the idea is that "brigading" is when eligible voters organize to advance an agenda... that's kind of literally the purpose of an election.
posted by dusty potato at 8:34 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 8:34 PM on March 7 [7 favorites]
If the concept is that it's important for the permanent board to have the same vision, priorities, and agenda as the interim board, having elections at all is a major waste of time and energy given that going that route is not legally necessary.
posted by dusty potato at 8:39 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 8:39 PM on March 7 [6 favorites]
It was previously proposed by the interim board that everyone with an account is a member of the site, but only “fellows” are part of the foundation and eligible to vote. I feel like this was announced about 1,000 years ago when they were almost ready to post a draft of bylaws to MeTa for review.
posted by snofoam at 2:13 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 2:13 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]
If the idea is that a hostile party will literally register new accounts en masse to shift the board election, just set a membership cutoff date for eligibility or something
I believe that at least some of the concern is that there are people who are hostile to MetaFilter who already have accounts, ie disgruntled ex-members.
Any simple one account = one vote option also ignores the fact that there a lot of sockpuppets out there, though it is not entirely clear that decoupling voting from the actual website would make determining if accounts are socks of each other all that much harder.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:23 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]
I believe that at least some of the concern is that there are people who are hostile to MetaFilter who already have accounts, ie disgruntled ex-members.
Any simple one account = one vote option also ignores the fact that there a lot of sockpuppets out there, though it is not entirely clear that decoupling voting from the actual website would make determining if accounts are socks of each other all that much harder.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:23 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]
There's tech on the backend that allows the staff to see sockpuppet accounts.
This does not account for corrupt users willing to sell their long-dormant sockpuppets to bad actors.
(Bidding starts at $500, my MeMail is open).
posted by Diskeater at 7:29 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
This does not account for corrupt users willing to sell their long-dormant sockpuppets to bad actors.
(Bidding starts at $500, my MeMail is open).
posted by Diskeater at 7:29 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
This whole argument that we need our own in-house software to avoid corruption is absolute bullshit and I believe even the people spouting it know that. For about half a US cent per voter, you can run a secure election that requires nothing more than a spreadsheet of voters and a list of candidates to set up. We could do that in a week. Most of the services offer free use for under 20 voters or similar, so its' trivial to test them out. Fuck, I'll even pay for it if that makes it easier.
Anyone who has an account could be categorized as an “affiliate” or “supporter,” but that doesn’t make them a member of the nonprofit, legally. Membership is usually defined by some kind of annual participation, whether that’s attending at least one event or paying membership dues or anything else, but if you haven’t participated in a nonprofit organization in the past year—even for very legitimate reasons—you typically are not eligible for membership and are instead an affiliate.
This is really important and also a key to making sure everyone voting is an 'active' member or, at the least, that anyone nominated for the board is active. We get to define what a member is and can have all sorts of levels of membership and (although I recommend keeping it as simple as possible) the criteria for nomination to the board could be far higher than the criteria to vote and it's not that hard and all sorts of organisations that have even less leadership that MeFi does manage to stumble through it without too much drama, for fuck's sake.
There are fundamental things that need to be decided such as what categories of membership there are, what their rights are and things like quora for meetings which, as brook horse points out, is absolutely critical and a common point of failure. A lot of organisations I've been involved in use something like 'twice the number of board positions plus one'. The important thing is to make sure you don't get all carried away and assume everyone is going to rush out to vote and remember that single-digit % of members voting is normal.
posted by dg at 5:50 PM on March 9 [7 favorites]
Anyone who has an account could be categorized as an “affiliate” or “supporter,” but that doesn’t make them a member of the nonprofit, legally. Membership is usually defined by some kind of annual participation, whether that’s attending at least one event or paying membership dues or anything else, but if you haven’t participated in a nonprofit organization in the past year—even for very legitimate reasons—you typically are not eligible for membership and are instead an affiliate.
This is really important and also a key to making sure everyone voting is an 'active' member or, at the least, that anyone nominated for the board is active. We get to define what a member is and can have all sorts of levels of membership and (although I recommend keeping it as simple as possible) the criteria for nomination to the board could be far higher than the criteria to vote and it's not that hard and all sorts of organisations that have even less leadership that MeFi does manage to stumble through it without too much drama, for fuck's sake.
There are fundamental things that need to be decided such as what categories of membership there are, what their rights are and things like quora for meetings which, as brook horse points out, is absolutely critical and a common point of failure. A lot of organisations I've been involved in use something like 'twice the number of board positions plus one'. The important thing is to make sure you don't get all carried away and assume everyone is going to rush out to vote and remember that single-digit % of members voting is normal.
posted by dg at 5:50 PM on March 9 [7 favorites]
I agree those things need to be decided, but I believe they legally need to be put in the bylaws, don't they? I think even in the unlikely event we all agree on something here, the voting process and voting rights need to be approved by the Board. Can the Board confirm that or tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? If that is the case, can we get clarification on what the bylaws-in-process say about voting rights?
posted by lapis at 6:36 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
posted by lapis at 6:36 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
Online voting systems that I am familiar with call for ballots to be sent out via e-mail. But my understanding is that MeFi doesn't have permission to send unsolicited e-mail. And that might be a factor in wanting to use "house"voting system.
posted by NotLost at 7:13 PM on March 9
posted by NotLost at 7:13 PM on March 9
Maybe to collect active voting users we can post a thingy in the banner that says click here to opt in to receive a voting email and just leave it up for the next two years while the current interim team dithers over bylaws and solving the Scott Adams problem.
posted by phunniemee at 7:30 PM on March 9 [7 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 7:30 PM on March 9 [7 favorites]
Register now to vote... eventually.
posted by ssg at 7:47 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
posted by ssg at 7:47 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
The thread with the proposed distinction between site members and "fellows" of the Foundation is here, and the proposal was:
The proposed requirements at that time did not include fellows requiring approval by the interim board, nor the board or staff having veto powers over who could become a fellow, or board member.
posted by automatronic at 5:21 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
-MetaFilter.com membersThere was some discussion about what exactly the time and contribution requirements to be a fellow would be, and a lot of objections to the term "fellow".
Participate on metafilter.com
Volunteer on committees and activities for the Website and MeFiCoFo
Provide input and feedback via MetaTalk and other channels
-MetaFilter Community Foundation fellows
Criteria to be a fellow: Time on site (proposal is for 6 months), contributions (A combination of posts/comments)
Can be pseudonymous
Can vote on MeFiCoFo governance issues, including MeFiCoFo board members
The proposed requirements at that time did not include fellows requiring approval by the interim board, nor the board or staff having veto powers over who could become a fellow, or board member.
posted by automatronic at 5:21 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
and a lot of objections to the term "fellow".
On the grounds that it's inherently sexist, or on the grounds that it's a missed opportunity to finally have a cabal?
posted by solotoro at 10:50 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
On the grounds that it's inherently sexist, or on the grounds that it's a missed opportunity to finally have a cabal?
posted by solotoro at 10:50 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One deleted, posted in wrong thread!
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 11:55 AM on March 11
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 11:55 AM on March 11
Before any election takes place, the site needs to make a philosophical decision and create an infrastructure for what constitutes a "member." Right now, though we use the term "member," it's colloquial. At a technical level, we are users, and we have user accounts - some of us have multiple accounts. The site leadership needs to decide what a "member" of the MeFiCoFo is and how that membership is established. It can't be the same as "user account," for obvious reasons. And perhaps it's possible that not every human being behind one or more user accounts wants to be a member of the new entity MeFiCoFo.
In many membership-based organizations, there is a formal enrollment that makes you a member, often but not always with a financial contribution of some level (think getting a library card). And in real-world elections, there is a registration process that identifies you as a unique individual and establishes your eligibility to vote. In both cases, there is a clear enrollment process that accords more power than just the ability to use the service.
I suggest that there needs to be a formal process of becoming a MeFiCoFo member. It could have preconditions (such as that you have an active user account) or not. But it should be clearly distinct and separate from being a user. The enrollment process should be clear, simple, straightforward, advertised long in advance with a long registration window, and easy to access on any platform. It could easily be an online form.
The Foundation just needs to establish what is considered a "member," let along a voting member, long before any actual elections take place. And yes, this needs to be codified in the bylaws.
posted by Miko at 6:37 AM on March 18 [4 favorites]
In many membership-based organizations, there is a formal enrollment that makes you a member, often but not always with a financial contribution of some level (think getting a library card). And in real-world elections, there is a registration process that identifies you as a unique individual and establishes your eligibility to vote. In both cases, there is a clear enrollment process that accords more power than just the ability to use the service.
I suggest that there needs to be a formal process of becoming a MeFiCoFo member. It could have preconditions (such as that you have an active user account) or not. But it should be clearly distinct and separate from being a user. The enrollment process should be clear, simple, straightforward, advertised long in advance with a long registration window, and easy to access on any platform. It could easily be an online form.
The Foundation just needs to establish what is considered a "member," let along a voting member, long before any actual elections take place. And yes, this needs to be codified in the bylaws.
posted by Miko at 6:37 AM on March 18 [4 favorites]
On the grounds that it's inherently sexist
Inherently sexist, and also ridiculously inappropriate to the context of a social discussion website rather than an affiliation with a serious academic institution.
posted by Miko at 6:38 AM on March 18 [5 favorites]
Inherently sexist, and also ridiculously inappropriate to the context of a social discussion website rather than an affiliation with a serious academic institution.
posted by Miko at 6:38 AM on March 18 [5 favorites]
On the grounds that it's inherently sexist, or on the grounds that it's a missed opportunity to finally have a cabal?
How about "caballer"?
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 12:52 PM on March 18 [1 favorite]
How about "caballer"?
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 12:52 PM on March 18 [1 favorite]
Personally, I think figuring out how to elect a representative board is pretty important, maybe the most important task for the foundation at this point. It is uninspiring/ominous that this doesn’t seem to be a priority for the interim board, staff or most of the people still participating here.
posted by snofoam at 6:11 PM on March 18 [10 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:11 PM on March 18 [10 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
also, maybe a small snippet of what each committee and the board members however many boards there are and what they required to do.
it may be a little lazy, on my behalf, but I think to have one spot where we all can look at what's going on in one page would help.
page as in all the info in one spot, not just one standard page of text.
as to the specificity of the post, perhaps holding the elections until the site has passed through beta and up and running might be a consideration.
posted by clavdivs at 1:59 PM on March 1 [6 favorites]