Message-ID: <556B6622.3040909@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 20:50:58 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "llg-members@lojban.org" <llg-members@lojban.org>
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --
Subject: [Llg-members] some thoughts on electing leaders and doers
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org


IIUC, LLG qua legal body should have membership comprised of reliably active people (of demonstrated goodwill to Lojban) in order to avoid the risk of inquoracy problems. And LLG's task is to run the business side of things, not to represent the Lojban community. So very little is served by having LLG members who aren't board members. The main qualification for being a board member would be to pay attention; the main qualification for being one of the named officers would be a willingness to get stuff done and to lead, along with some decent indication that they have the confidence of the community.

I wonder therefore whether things might work a bit better if we did them thus:
Have a non-legal Jbopre Group consisting of existing members of LLG, which (i) votes (by majority of votes cast) to admit new members, where candidate new members are anybody shown to be a welcome member of the community who wants to join, and (ii) votes for people to be LLG members and board members. Candidate LLG members would be those willing to be board members. Voting would preferably be rather less often than annual, to reduce the faff. Voting would be by approval, voting for people as board members and for the officer roles (for those candidates who have consented to be nominated for an officer role). The n candidates with the most votes are on the board (I forget what n is -- 7 or 8 or something like that). The LLG is made up of board members plus anyone else getting approval from more than half of those voting. None of this need be legally binding and (I think) no by-laws would need changing.

The general situation now and always is that there is a shortage of folk able and willing to do stuff and especially to lead. My thinking is that once someone is prevailed upon to accept nomination to that sort of role, receiving a bunch of votes from others will both serve to cement their laudable sense of civic duty and legitimate their taking on the role. Maybe terms of about 3 years would balance the risk of burnout with the hassle of having elections.

Any thoughts? (I do realize most people probably don't give a shit either way...)


--And.


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members