There are some expectations that doing this is a step toward these things: 1) create a template for inter-organizational cooperation that may be applied to similar partnerships in the area 2) engage participation in MISFITS from members of organizations who have been leery of such involvement with CONvergence looming over it 3) overcome structural inequities and challenges that included cumbersome size; which should 3a) enhance managerial and operational mobility for the partners
Are those what would have to be met to be considered a victory condition? Well, there's also some things that would qualify as educated guesses at outcomes! Each partner would be freer in decision making, leadership cycles would change, paths to participation would increase, and we hope to correct misimpressions of just how the two fill their roles as community goods.
This also quite swiftly moves us closer (organization-wise) to a community center model than a lot of people may presently recognize.
But seriously: my position is that I feel anyone currently holding voting privileges for the Society will continue to hold those privileges in the next election (January 2010). It's also my belief (not an official position or anything yet) that voting eligibility for MISFITS is more likely to change first, as I hold that voting eligibility should adapt to what will be an initial change in volunteering availability. The current bylaws set attendance and volunteering minimums, which include convention/convention committee participation at a certain level.
Because the change would remove MISFITS voting qualification from convention committee service, in my initial pass at revised bylaws for the Society I suggest we present members an option: be counted by EITHER combined event attendance + volunteering equity OR combined attendance + dues payment. You may recognize this model in many food co-ops, which is exactly from whence it comes.
Comments 14
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Which is, I think, is the attitude of everyone involved.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
1) create a template for inter-organizational cooperation that may be applied to similar partnerships in the area
2) engage participation in MISFITS from members of organizations who have been leery of such involvement with CONvergence looming over it
3) overcome structural inequities and challenges that included cumbersome size; which should
3a) enhance managerial and operational mobility for the partners
Are those what would have to be met to be considered a victory condition? Well, there's also some things that would qualify as educated guesses at outcomes! Each partner would be freer in decision making, leadership cycles would change, paths to participation would increase, and we hope to correct misimpressions of just how the two fill their roles as community goods.
This also quite swiftly moves us closer (organization-wise) to a community center model than a lot of people may presently recognize.
Reply
Reply
But seriously: my position is that I feel anyone currently holding voting privileges for the Society will continue to hold those privileges in the next election (January 2010). It's also my belief (not an official position or anything yet) that voting eligibility for MISFITS is more likely to change first, as I hold that voting eligibility should adapt to what will be an initial change in volunteering availability. The current bylaws set attendance and volunteering minimums, which include convention/convention committee participation at a certain level.
Because the change would remove MISFITS voting qualification from convention committee service, in my initial pass at revised bylaws for the Society I suggest we present members an option: be counted by EITHER combined event attendance + volunteering equity OR combined attendance + dues payment. You may recognize this model in many food co-ops, which is exactly from whence it comes.
Reply
Leave a comment