Part I: the organizational structure

[cesperanza]

NOTE: these posts are by astolat; I can't post right now due to the ongoing LJ technical difficulties, so cesperanza is putting them up for me. I have this post thumbtacked, so will see any comments made

Comments

[loligo]

Donations will have to be made in your real name, because we have to keep a (private) record of them in case the IRS comes calling. However, there will be no connection between your real name and the username you use at the archive. Membership in the organization will NOT be required to use the archive or any of our other tools, and there will not be levels of service. (We will generally be keeping as little information as possible about our users.)

Membership is a completely separate issue from actually using the site. Everyone and anyone will be able to archive their work, read stories, etc., using any pseud they want, and it will all be free of charge. "Membership" just means donating money (or other resources) so that you can vote for (or serve on) the board of directors.

(Of course, if you wanted to donate money but still didn't want your real name known by anyone, you could just donate anonymously -- but you wouldn't be able to vote.)

Board member questions

[taverymate]

I did read through the post several times, but I still have a question re board membership.

Board members will have a term of three years, with annual elections: every year, one third of the board positions will come up for election (along with any positions where the board member has resigned early).

[SNIP]

Candidates for the board will have to be members in good standing, with at least a year of service on a standing committee.How are you planning on handling the first board selection and the first board rollover-election timing? Obviously, candidates for the first board will not have had a year of service on a standing committee. Will it be open nominations, with candidate statements, then a set period for voting, seating those 5-7 with the highest number of votes? (And I'll leave questions re voting for another time. *g

Re: Board member questions

[inalasahl]

Most of these questions are answered in the next post: Part 2

Re: Board member questions

[taverymate]

Like a couple other folks above, I found LJ extremely slow in loading posts (and I"m on dial-up, so I know what a slow loading page is like *g*) and LJ wasn't fully displaying entries, which meant multiple tries at reloading. More patience would not have been amiss, but I did comment on Part 1 before I read Part 2.

But though Part 2 covers staggering, it doesn't address term limits. Nor does it really define the initial board appointment process.

I will be putting together a small initial board to take us through the incorporation of the nonprofit. This initial appointed board will be responsible for establishing the organization and its basic character, and setting up the standing committees.

Will power to appoint the initial board be solely vested in astolat? Will she do it in consultation with the working group? Can the existing working group overrule her? If they are involved, who makes up the working group? What happens if more qualified people indicate interest in the board than there are places? How will that number be whittled

Re: Board member questions

[amireal]

The first elections (for one-third of the board) will be held in about one year and continue annually thereafter (so the whole board will be elected by the membership within three years).

I got the feeling that the initial appointment process, by necessity would be less than a usual vote. But they will be replaced by an election process in staggered terms. By then many people will have had the requisite terms to run for the board and have committee time under their belts, etc.

[rushin_doll]

One concern, which is really more cautionary than problematic:

I have found that people vastly underestimate the ways in which infrastructure heavy software increases bureaucratic inertia. I very much approve of the idea of a rotating board to provide stability and evolution, but I think it's important that we're aware of just how much of our future is going to be shaped by our initial technological decisions.

It's quite possible that this is something that was already under consideration, but I've seen a lot of organizations miss this entirely, create flexible organizational structures, and then lock themselves down with technology structures which make it hard to adapt.

I bring it up because I think it is something that will largely fall to the initial board and committees to handle, and something that must be handled carefully if the organization is going to remain as flexible as everyone wants.

Finding it all very exciting,
Ana

[missyvortexdv]

Where about in the structure would testing/QA come? Under design and technology (related to implementation of design/coding) or a department itself that liases with other relevant departments like deisgn and technology...

[stewardess]

I was about to ask this, because testing/QA is what I wish to volunteer for.

[stewardess]

I'd like to add: it's important that QA/testing be a separate group/different people from development. QA is about making the user happy, not the developer.

[missyvortexdv]

True, though good communication with the developers is also necessary.

[msilverstar]

I think User Relations / TOS / Abuse issues are going to be enormously important, and suggest a committee to build that starting early. If this group was headed by an experienced mediator or conflict manager, we might avoid the problems we've seen with LJ Abuse.

[stewardess]

I second this.