[wplug-board] proposed changes

[Evan Samuel Dibiase]

I'll again agree with Mark and note that I didn't know that all of these
things were going on, and that we should find More Diverse And Appropriate
Board Members, and I'll stop trying to paraphrase his email, etc.

That said, I also think we need to define a bit more of what a board
member is.

I like WPLUG. I like going to a lot of WPLUG events. That doesn't mean
that I feel particularly inclined to go to *every* install-fest, for
example; I've done enough Linux installations to last me a lifetime (and I
think most of you can attest to that) :-) I don't think that it's the
board's fault if I don't want to go to a GUM or an install-fest, or even
if I don't want to go to most of the GUMs or install-fests. It's mine. Not
every talk interests me. I like install-fests for just general geeking out
and hanging around, but that doesn't happen unless people are around with
whom I'd like to hang out and geek. No amount of me showing up to talks on
things I'm not interested in is going to make the talks more interesting
to me, but that doesn't mean that they're not good talks for WPLUG to
host.

To me, it's not unreasonable to have both people who attend every and all
meeting and folks who, well, don't, on the board. People have doubts about
the level of commitment of the leadership because some of that leadership
hasn't been showing up to many meetings recently? That sounds like a poor
reason to doubt, to me; I think Jeremy is quite committed to WPLUG, for
example, and he hasn't been to a meeting in quite a while.

As for structure, I think that it can be useful to talk and see what to do
next, but that, if this is what we want, we can get it other ways than
(again, to use my example) by having me sit, bored, through the next
24-hour install-fest just so nobody complains that I'd not hardcore
enough. If we want to meet to discuss structure, let's meet to discuss
structure.

It also sucks that Beth's getting burned out. If she wants a co-host at
every meeting, that's absolutely someone (or some set of ones) that we
should find. It doesn't need to be a board member, though, or at least an
existing one. Why not find someone who goes to every event and make *him*
the designated co-host? Hell, we could even bring him on to the board as
the *official* designated co-host!

In short, I think that a lot of the problems that Beth has brought up are
important, but more directly solved by means other than strict
attendance/RSVP policies for board members.

Evan

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Beth Lynn wrote:

> Hello,
>
> More often than I would like, There's only one or two board members
> present at WPLUG events. I find this to be a problem for the following
> reasons in no apparent order.
>
> 1. The board has selected attendance as a matrix for improvement of
> quality of meetings. If WPLUG meetings are not worthwhile attending,
> that's nobody's fault but the board itself since we have the ability
> to set the policy to fix WPLUG meetings.
> 2. If you aren't there, people ask *me* where you are and why you
> haven't been around WPLUG for a while. The general membership has
> some serious doubts about the level of commitment of the leadership.
> 3. If we knew who out of the board members where attending WPLUG
> events before the event itself, we could plan to have more structure
> to the meetings. The result would be a more professional events that
> community members would see as quality. Instead we are just seen as
> a bunch of slackers.
> 4. I'm getting tired. It's alot of work hosting a meeting and things
> have been falling through the cracks. When I'm the only board member
> who's at a WPLUG event, people just don't listen and they have not
> been respectful to the speaker. It just doesn't work out for
> everybody concerned. I cannot and will not host another WPLUG event
> without at least one other co-host.
> 5. I RSVP for meetings. I would like the same curiously out of my
> fellow board members.
> 6. Back when, WPLUG board members used to attend meetings. We'd
> discuss briefly what needs to be done next. And guess what, things got
> accomplished. We haven't had a quorum since I don't know when at
> a general WPLUG event.
> 7. Several members have complained that the leadership more resembles
> an exclusive click than a representation of the community. This point
> is getting increasingly more difficult to defend against, when non
> board members are doing alot of great volunteer work for WPLUG and
> the board members are rarely to be seen.
>
> I realize you are all very busy people, but guess what, I have other
> things I could be doing too. Please don't take it for granted that
> things will get done in your absence since somebody else will do it.
> All I'm asking for is a board who will work together. This should be
> a team effort.
>
> It is crucial for the success of WPLUG that board members are held
> accountable for attendance at WPLUG meetings.
>
> The bottom line is WPLUG is suffering from a major morale crisis.
> Things have gone downhill for too long and this is getting freaking
> ridiculous. I can not do this all on my own.
>
> Thanks,
> Beth Lynn
>
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Evan DiBiase wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 2003, at 3:10 PM, Beth Lynn wrote:
> >
> > > #1 If a board-member is unable to attend a GUM, Install fest, Tutorial,
> > > or other WPLUG event, he or she should send mail to WPLUG-board in
> > > a timely manner when the time conflict is discovered. Gerri of course
> > > would
> > > be excluded from this.
> >
> > Is there a reason for this that I'm not thinking of, or are we merely
> > trying to codify having every board member (save Gerr) attend all WPLUG
> > events, except for conflicts?
> >
> > I'm for the other proposals, but this one seems restrictive an
> > unnecessary.
> >
> > Evan
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wplug-board mailing list
> wplug-board at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug-board
>
>