On 11/11/13 4:09 PM, bgordon@rain.org wrote:

Hi Everybody,

Thanks for all of your inputs in the last few days.

As I see it, the new, small board can be useful in getting funding from other sources than just our dues. It could also save time at board meetings for up to 8 other people. The downside is that it could drive members away if they feel that the club's interests become too narrow or that their ideas are not considered.

Agreed, although I'm not 100% convinced, and I'm not aware of any philanthropic organizations with rules along the lines of "No grants to any organization with a board greater than [N]. The only discussion about external funding I've seen that may have merit is fear that the word "Club" counts against us.

I'm not opposed to reducing the board size per se. The language in the proposed changes in my opinion could use some serious rework. None of the points made by the anonymous poster here have been rebutted by anyone in favor of the change, and some of those points are serious.

It has been suggested that the slow and fragmented approach to this election might cause a damaging extended series of meetings and votes. Messy and unproductive!

Not necessarily. It could and should be done openly. There are two questions that I see.

Question 1: What number makes sense as a good balance between having too many where things get bound up in minutia vs. too few where the interests become too narrow and ideas aren't considered?

Question 2: Should the board positions continue to be mostly role-based as they are now, where each Board member has an area of expertise to bring to the table as well as a "constituency" of Club members with common interests that will support the Club as a whole because their interests are represented by those on the Board?

In another posting, I advocated nine role-based Board members as a form of compromise.

Below I have outlined a procedure that should be fair to all who attend the meeting. Those that submit proxies will only be able to vote on the amendment of the bylaws, not for members of the new board if it is approved or for the old board.

The proxies that were mailed had only that option. Nothing prevents members from soliciting proxies for candidates.

On election night, the discussion and vote on a small board should be done first because if it passes, the old style board is moot. If the small board idea does pass, there should be an election of officers for it at the same meeting where both members and election materials are on hand. In either case, the newly elected people would take charge at the begining of next year. Despite the bumpy start, I see no value in dragging out the decision and having an additional round of voting later.

That's likely how it will go down. If the current structure remains, in my opinion it is in the best interest of the club to continue to explore a smaller Board as well as some minor Bylaws cleanup to correct the typos that exist in both the existing and proposed documents.

In my opinion, the fair way to accomplish this would be to continue work on the Bylaws, publish a working draft, solicit input from the membership at large, and present the final draft of the Bylaws change no later than April to be voted on in May. If approved, everyone with an interest will have had a say in it, and we will have time for a professional review as others have suggested.

By the time of elections, we won't have the disaster that this has become. It won't be a surprise showing up in the mailbox with less than a week to go.

I strongly disagree with the spreading of FUD that this change must be done immediately to avoid a yet-to-be-defined peril.

According to the published minutes of this year's Board meetings it looks like the concept was brought up in January and repeatedly tabled or completely ignored through August, the last minutes available online. It's a pity that the proponents took no action until the last possible moment and presented it as a complete surprise riddled with errors.

-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV