On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM, AndrewRT <andrewrtur...@googlemail.com>wrote:

> One aspect which might be putting people off is the frequency and
> length of the Board meetings we've been having to date. The initial
> Board has met 23 times so far (nearly once per week on average) often
> for 3 hours or more. Whilst this is probably necessary when we're
> getting things sorted out, I'd like to suggest that the next board has
> shorter and less frequent meetings. I think meeting once per month for
> no more than 2 hours would be ideal, so that it's not too much of a
> burdon on Board members and we avoid burning our volunteers out. At
> the same time we can change the Board into more of an "oversight"
> role, and do more "organising" work outside.

If the situation requires frequent and long board meetings, that is what
must be done. However, once everything is up and running one can hope that
board meetings may be less frequent and shorter. Still, if they are required
to meet more often then though be it. I wouldn't like to see the board limit
it's meetings to a certain frequency and duration out of convenience and
then leave things open for discussion until the next meeting. Anybody
standing for a board should be aware of that.

> It's surprising what you can acheive when working to a strict
> deadline, and our productivity does tend to dive after a couple of
> hours.

That is true!

> Hopefully this will also encourage people who are thinking of putting
> their names forward but are put off by the commitment of meetings.

I hope that such measures don't have to be taken to encourage to stand for
the board of an organisation and that the level of commitment needed is
known in advance.

> What do others think?

It's ashame when an organisation has sufficient members, but not enough who
are willing to commit to standing for the board. I am currently not (yet!) a
member of the UK chapter, mainly due to geographic location and time in
sorting out the paper work. From past experience in working and organising
in other non-profit organisations I can say that often there are enough
members who would be willing to stand, but many don't put themselves forward
for such a position themselves and need to be asked. I'm not too sure why
this is, but maybe the existing board members could contact and talk to a
few potential candidates.

Wikimedia UK mailing list
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to