Committee Members - Elections

[michael]

Some time ago it was suggested that the Committee members should be voted in (or out) by club members in order to ensure that their best interests were being served rather than it being under the control of what could be considered a self-appointed dictatorship. At the time the committee hadn't been around for long but it was hinted that this may be a possibility in the future... is it likely to be?

Moderators are voted in for what is effectively a fairly minor role in the scheme of things, would it be of greater benefit to do the same with the committee members?

I know votes come up for these roles when someone leaves of their own will but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in place for new people to apply for the positions and accept votes.

I seem to recall the DC doing this on a yearly basis in conjunction with their AGM - can't do any harm can it?

This isn't an attack on the existing committee in any shape or form BTW, just a small chat about a concept that could enhance IMOC and make it stronger by having the right people running the show (and maybe they are already?).

[LimeyMk1]

I don't think an all out change in committee is practical, but do agree that a good turnover of people would be beneficial. New members would need to be shown the ropes by old hands etc.

Thing is, how many people actually want to be Committee members?

[Spittinflames]

Agreed

[michael]

I see if more of an opportunity to do a vote of confidence in the committee than a witch hunt to remove people but also think it would be nice to have the roles rotate on a fairly regular basis. As you've said there obviously needs to be some element of learning for anyone joining up but I doubt anyone would expect a vote to result in the entire team being given the boot

[Tiamat]

There is some very distinct problems with this.

If certain people are removed then the skills necessary to maintain the website and do all the geeky technical stuff behind the scenes may be removed.

I personally cannot see Esmond, Ben or Alex assisting if they taken off the Committee. Why should they? Plus then it calls into question giving non-committee people the power to alter IMOC.

I am not against the voting of it, just its not as simple as its first made out to be.

[Jaspa]

I thought the Committee was voted in? with the exception of the core obviously.

http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60670

[michael]

An interesting viewpoint - "give me power or you get nothing" isn't a stance I thought the current team would take to be honest but clearly you think it is. I always thought people helped for the love of the club, not for any form of reward, be it a title or something else.

Simple change management with authorisation from the appointed committee would be enough to rule out any "power for the normal people" issues with the "geeky stuff" but that presumes that those involved would be willing to contribute if they didn't have a seat in the ivory tower... something to consider I guess.

[michael]

I thought the Committee was voted in? with the exception of the core obviously.

http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60670

That's an example of someone stepping down and a role being available as a result I believe.

What defines "the core" in your eyes?

[Jaspa]

That's an example of someone stepping down and a role being available as a result I believe.

What defines "the core" in your eyes?

BenF, Speedy etc. The guys who are looking at replacing the server and actually ensure this forum et al is running. I'm not getting drawn in any further on that one

[michael]

BenF, Speedy etc. The guys who are looking at replacing the server and actually ensure this forum et al is running. I'm not getting drawn in any further on that one

I'm not trying to draw you in on anything FFS, I'm opening a line of communication with someone replying to a post on a forum If you don't want to discuss a topic stay out of it, if you want to add your input prepare to be questioned.

I haven't made a suggestion that the current team should be removed and I don't expect anyone else to do so either but is it wrong to explore other options even if they ultimately lead to things staying the same?

Perhaps the revenue generated by premium membership funds is enough to outsource forum support / upgrades to someone else... perhaps the current team is a better option... a yearly mission statement that outlines core skills from those wishing to continue a role as well as the same from others wishing to offer their services and a small vote wouldn't be such an issue would it?

[Tiamat]

An interesting viewpoint - "give me power or you get nothing" isn't a stance I thought the current team would take to be honest but clearly you think it is. I always thought people helped for the love of the club, not for any form of reward, be it a title or something else.

Misunderstanding me there Michael. I am not saying its all or nothing, I am simply pointing out that there are members of the Committee who have put in a lotof time setting it up and if they were suddenly voted out of office then they could legitimately say "the responsibility is not mine anymore" and not contribute and become a normal member and enjoy the club for what it is, a fun gathering of like minded individuals. This would mean that the "geeky" stuff would not get done. Not saying it from a power hungry viewpoint, I have no involvement in the technical side, its simply an observation.

Simple change management with authorisation from the appointed committee would be enough to rule out any "power for the normal people" issues with the "geeky stuff" but that presumes that those involved would be willing to contribute if they didn't have a seat in the ivory tower... something to consider I guess.

Again see the above. I have no problem with the Committee being elected provided they know the commitment they are taking on. As I understand it the Committee have traditionally come from the Moderators, as a introduction to the neutrality required to do the job.

I still think this is a good way to introduce people and to help grow the club, and certainly if there was to be voting then I think that there should be some kind of minum entry requirement, such as having been a moderator or minimum period of time on the forum.

However I do also consider it to be unfair if the people who have grown the club, sorted the technical infrastructure and made it what it is today are then voted out totally because they may have upset a few members, which could easily happen.

Who is going to want to be a Committee member and make the decisions if they know they are going ot be voted out suddenly, it calls into question the neutrality of the Committee. It also may mean decisions are not taken and could mean that the club doesn't progress because there are too many people trying to drive it forward in different directions.

My 2p.

[LimeyMk1]

Perhaps the revenue generated by premium membership funds is enough to outsource forum support / upgrades to someone else...

Agree it would be interesting to find out if this was viable. It would save our volunteer tech people a lot of hassle if the basic maintenance of the site was outsourced but I have a feeling it may be prohibitively expensive.

You're pretty knowlegable on the tech side of forums aren't you Michael? I don't know the ins and outs but I would guess a hand over of responsibility would be pretty time consuming explaining all the little personal tweaks (and I guess there are loads in this forum) that have been done.

Just my thoughts, I can use a spanner but programming/IT's beyond me!

[Jaspa]

I'm not trying to draw you in on anything FFS, I'm opening a line of communication with someone replying to a post on a forum If you don't want to discuss a topic stay out of it, if you want to add your input prepare to be questioned.

You're right, your posts come across a bit beligerant occasionally, I'm just reading more into it than I should have. My apologies.

My thoughts are simply this, I've been a member on here for a couple of years now and have seen the committee change the odd person, but the main people have stayed the same (AFAIK) I don't see anything wrong with the work that they do, but think that although this forum is made up from all the members, the committee still has to have the means to shape the forum to keep it running.

If they are changed then IMOC would take another shape and I'm not sure that would be a good thing personally. I like the format that it has taken and the presence it has both on the interweb and at events. Thats why I put myself forward as Mod, so that I can give something back to the site.

Does that make sense?

Stuart

[anna]

Are you suggesting that all committee be put up for election periodically? (ie vote for every position each year), or elect people into roles? (and then shuffle as needed and elect when required?)

[ducatichick]

I'm not too sure where my feeling are with this...I'm thinking maybe a Commitee and Moderator "feedback" almost-thngs that can be put forward to improve what "staff" are already on the site. I think it would seem unstable to keep changing the comittee.

Seeing what they/we do is not in the slightest easy or minor, its a job in itself, which takes up more time than you would think.


I deinately think we should be given feedback (not like a scoring system-a comments file or similar) so we can see what peoples views are-this way we can all keep an eye on each other also

I know I've almost taken this thread to a different topic (I appologise) but I think a free flowing turnover of comittee would be near on impossible due to the knowledge needed-even being a moderator takes some getting used to

[THE DUKE]

I don't like fish but i voted haddock.

Voting is the wrong way forward.

[Icsunonove]

Yeah, I think it's a good idea - with two exceptions: Ben and Speedy. They are the only two who can fix the forum when it falls over. You need two to cover holidays etc... They do an awful lot of (largely unseen) work in the background.

[tonigmr2]

Actually I'm not for it. There is a natural turnover when people step down, and I expect some of our longer serving committee members may well do that in the natural course of things during the next few months.

We have already had a case when somebody wanted to be on the committee, and 24 hours later gave it up as they didn't realise the work involved. Imagine if we re-elected everybody and then that happened, then what?

It's not a simple thing to just say do it yearly, as there is a core of know how and responsibility that cannot just be handed over to untried people. I support people running for moderator which are re-elected regularly, then having first shot at the committee when they have had experience of how the board runs. The only reason the above direct committee election took place is the affiliate role is a very time consuming one, and all the existing moderators realised that and didn't want to do it!!

T

[bluemr2gts]

i agree with michael on this one !

i was thinking the same thing.

i realise their is alot of work invovled that most of us dont even have a clue where to start but on the upside it would bring in new ideas etc.. and maybe even give this forum the edge over the rest of them !

[Tiamat]

I think this is the problem, people do not realise how much time it can take up. We had an Affiliates Committee person who lasted 24 hours because he did not realise. I certainyl did not realise that it could take up to 2 hours of my life every day editing banned profiles, banning the spammers, redistributing posts and doing stuff behind the scens as well. On a bad day I have spent over four hours dealing with matters, plus conference calls with the other Committee members to talk through issues and planning.

I am happy for there to be a turnover of Committee members, but truly think that it needs to be a case of them coming up through the ranks, so to speak, such as being a Moderator and then a Committee person. It takes a lot of time and effort and what we need to avoid is people signing up, having a look behind the scenes and going "oh my god, this it too much like work" and then leaving.

If there can be a sensible way of progressing it and creating a turnover of people then thats good, I go along with it. Subject to people like Ben and Alex who do the techy stuff staying on board permenantly.