On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
[snip a bunch of good things]
but I also would like to urge you to choose a structure that makes you feel comfortable, that is common in your country. I suggest you approach some organizations that are similar to yours (small associations) and ask them how they organized themselves.
This is probably the most important point ever. Listen to our European centric opinions, pick our brains, challenge our experience, and don't hesitate to discard right away what doesn't make sense to you in a cultural, legal, gut-feeling kind of way :)
I totally agree there should be a way for the membership to replace the board members - but this does not have to be easy.
+1
I agree with Manuel to have terms of 1 year instead of three. However, keep in mind it is common that board members are re-elected, so their actual term will likely be longer than one year.
I have a more mitigated opinion on this. I believe for example that having one year terms for Wikimedia Deutschland is a liability at this stage of development of the chapter. But let me try and make this a bit clearer by giving you my thought behind the length of a board mandate.
*Boards are usually made up of volunteers. Volunteers motivation is fluctuating, mostly due to outside things. Today, all of you people have time and are motivated to do things, but you don't know where you'll be in three years. Maybe starting a new job, maybe finishing a demanding Phd, maybe travelling the world, maybe having moved on to other non-profit involvements, whatever. So signing up for three years for a very young chapter is, in my opinion, not a realistic thing. One year sounds more like it. Lodewijk is also right, people tend to be reelected for at least another year anyway. And let's be realistic, your first year will be spent on doing stuff, not on strategizing much :)
* I don't agree however, that in the mid term, reelecting the board every year is a good thing. My personal opinion is that for a very developped chapterr like Wikimedia Deutschland for example, the illusion of democracy (elections happening more often give the impression that it is all more "democratic") actually have a negative side effect, which is basically that people are campaigning almost all year long. In a developped chapter, it takes quite a long time to get acquainted with how things work, and a year can be very short. My observation is also that as a chapter grows, the age of its board members tend to go up on average, with people who are less prone to sudden changes in their life, and more ready to commit for a longer amount of time.
* A longer term as one year also gives some stability to the chapter. It allows for continuity in the governing body, which I find is good. However, that only really works if you add a the two-tier renewal, ie. half of the board being elected every other year, rather than the board being elected as a block for two years. Wikimedia France has introduced a longer mandate (2 years) three years ago (I think?), and has had rotating elections ever since, which, in my opinion, really have benefitted the growth of the chapter. This also addresses the passing of the flame, as you constantly have at least half of the board who "was here the year before" and can work the new people in.
In any case, my advice, which of course, you are free to reject, of course, would be the following:
* Go for a one year term at the beginning, to allow more people to feel they can participate at the higher level of the chapter. This helps with member motivation and member retention. If you start with a three year term, there is no room for new people to come at that level in well... three years, and it's a looooong time.
*Do keep in mind the possibility, when the chapter is better developed, to change the bylaws and introduce a two year term with 1/2 he board elected every other year.
That's all folks,
Have fun bylawering ;)
Cheers,
Delphine