Last call for SC nominations March 22, 2023 1:00 PM   Subscribe

PSA: This week is the last call for user nominations to the second Steering Committee, which will be setting policy and overseeing the budget for the year ahead. Do you want to help chart a course for this community (or know someone who would make a great pick)? Send in your nominations today! Or check inside for more details and questions answered.

The Steering Committee (SC) is a group of MeFites elected last fall to consult with staff on managing the site's direction. Faced with a financial crunch, we were able to mount a successful fundraiser, including a community auction, a compelling slate of online events, new merch, sponsored posts, and a groundswell of volunteer projects and member contributions. This led to a draft budget securing new tools and roles to improve the site's financial condition. With the first six month term now closed, we're seeking new members to oversee this new budget as well as policy changes and feature improvements for the year ahead.

The window for nominations was originally set to close last Wednesday, but with the BIPOC board meeting this weekend we decided to extend it till then so they can have the chance to discuss their recommendations to the SC. In the meantime, we're making a final push for nominees, and that starts with addressing some questions and concerns people have had:
  • Time commitment: We called for 10 hours a week (~90 min a day) but emphasize that this is a rule of thumb for keeping up with SC affairs and being available to participate in things when able, not a regularly-scheduled block of rigorous work. We're hoping that at minimum, SC members can read and comment on our internal forum, communicate with site staff on their Slack, attend a monthly Zoom meeting, keep up with developments on the site and in working groups in order to vote on proposals and guide volunteers, etc. Ultimately, we'd like to make sure people can keep in regular contact, and that there are enough folks around regularly to keep things on track week-to-week. Please don't feel like working a full-time job means you have to rule yourself out -- as long as you can spare an hour or so on an average day for staying in the loop and contributing to developments, then you can be an SC member!
  • Responsibilities: The roles defined (secretarial, comms, bizdev, etc.) sound like A Lot but they're much more informal than a similar role in a corporate context. It's more about identifying broad areas of SC interest and putting somebody in charge of paying attention to that so things don't get neglected or overcentralized. Generally speaking the hour or so per day we target for SC business will be spent on the baseline communication stuff in relation to one's particular focus. So the Coding role, for instance, isn't 10 hours of at-your-desk programming work, it means generally keeping tabs on community feature requests, discussing them with the SC, prioritizing them for frimble, and tracking progress to report back. In our budgeting for 2023, we also allocated resources for part-time paid staff to come onboard in programming and administrative roles this year. While this may not be a magic bullet to all the work that lies ahead, it may alleviate some of the current workload and improve some workflows. Loup will be posting an open call for these positions soon.
  • Labor regs: Some questioned whether the SC was okay as a volunteer effort or if it crossed the line into employee status. We acknowledge the scope creep that has occurred as the first SC came to discover and navigate the extent of the site's financial and organizational challenges. While we don't have easy answers right now, we appreciate the conversations that have started and the concerns expressed. We do not plan for the SC to take on large amounts of volunteer operational roles in the long-term, and we intend to get MetaFilter to a position where it can be truly sustainable in all aspects, with the SC returning to the more advisory and steering role it was envisioned to have. We are in a transition phase, and that has meant making difficult decisions and taking this challenge head-on to get the site on a better path at a crucial time. We are still in transition, and many challenges remain. We will be upfront in acknowledging the next SC has its work cut out for it, but we also believe every new SC will come into a progressively better situation, building on the work done before -- for example, the next term will already have a communications system, volunteer network, and proven examples of various community events already in place. We appreciate the community dialogue around these issues, and Jessamyn is also seeking legal advice to ensure we'll be on solid ground. She'll report what she finds as soon as she's able.
  • Role: Some have expressed confusion over what role the SC plays, and the answer is: whatever we make of it. Both jessamyn and loup have been supportive of our activities and laid down no red lines on making changes to the site. So if you have ever benefited from the site or want to see it succeed, we encourage you to throw your hat in the ring -- if you have ideas for initiatives or areas you've wanted the site to consider tackling, joining the SC and making a persuasive case and generally being the change you'd like to see is a great way to make that happen.
So if that sounds like something you'd be interested in, email metafiltersc@gmail.com with the subject line "Steering Committee Self-Nomination" and the following in the email body: [notes in brackets can be replaced]
USERNAME: [your primary active MetaFilter account]

FULL NAME: [seen only by staff/SC and not shared]

PERSONAL INFORMATION: [As much as you're comfortable sharing; we're looking for a diverse group of MeFites to better reflect and advocate for the full range of community experience]

SKILLS: [Outline the skills or professional experience you bring to the SC and how you hope to use it]

ACCESSIBILITY: [Describe any accessibility needs to help you participate in SC meetings and discussions.]

YOUR METAFILTER EXPERIENCE: [What do you like most about MetaFilter? What do you think needs to change? If you tell someone you're on the MetaFilter Steering Committee and they ask "What is MetaFilter? Why are you on the SC?" what's your answer?]

PLEDGE:
* Affirm that you agree to abide by the SC charter.
* Affirm that you can commit to a minimum 6 month term, can attend a monthly synchronous meeting, and are able to stay in regular contact with both the SC and MetaFilter staff (this is in the charter, but it's important to emphasize).
* Affirm that you will not disclose private or confidential information about users and the site that you have access to during your time on the SC.
* If you are not either selected to be or voted to be a member, are you interested in being a volunteer contributor?
posted by Rhaomi to Steering Committee at 1:00 PM (52 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

That is a very long list of red flags.
posted by schmod at 3:06 PM on March 22, 2023 [8 favorites]


My previous comment was deleted, so let me try again:

If this post were an employment advertisement, it would be one of the ones that would be passed mercilessly around Twitter and Reddit as a long and unreasonable list of red-flags that no sane applicant would touch.
  • Acknowledgement that things are currently bad, but vague promises that they’ll get better
  • No clear job description
  • Long (and unbounded) hours
  • No pay, but you will be managing paid employees while also doing work more commonly associated with professional staff
  • An acknowledgement that the employer might be violating employment law, and a vague promise that the management will eventually “look into it”
  • A request to disclose any disabilities in your application
  • [Unwritten]: The majority of people who have had this role quit after less than a year
I genuinely do want the site to succeed and thrive, and I’d even consider submitting my name for consideration. However, I don’t think that this even comes close to addressing the (valid) feedback that members had about the original call for nominations.

In a way it’s worse, because that feedback has been considered and completely ignored.
posted by schmod at 4:59 PM on March 22, 2023 [26 favorites]


Schmod, my apologies for deleting your comment! In my haste of catching up with flags after a break in our power outage here in my city, I nixed the comment without fully processing what thread I was in. My power then went back out before I could review my deletions. I've reinstated the original comment.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:12 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]


a vague promise that the management will eventually “look into it”

I have, specifically, reached out to my lawyer and asked about this specific situation and he is looking into it. I am waiting to hear back from my lawyer about this. Hope that's a little less vague.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:17 PM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]


Thanks, travelingthyme. It's partially my fault as well -- I'd been keeping an eye on the thread as the OP but had to step away for a bit shortly before schmod's comment without saying so. It apparently caught some flags in the interim which bumped it up the flag queue (which is a separate view from the thread). Having a designated person to respond to SC threads is one of the things we're doing to improve communications, but gaps like that are gonna happen when we're doing this on a more informal basis. (We could have designated coverage hours and requirements to answer by X time but that's the sort of rigorous job responsibility we're not looking to require from folks here). Getting to schmod's follow-up comment now.
posted by Rhaomi at 5:22 PM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]


The Steering Committee is not responsible for replying to flags.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:08 PM on March 22, 2023


I have nothing but gratitude for the SC and anyone who is willing to put themself up for that role. Thank you all. I have very little experience consulting with a lawyer, but I am a little concerned that not having an answer after a couple weeks could mean that the nature of the volunteer SC is not obviously a non-issue that can safely be ignored. If we don’t have the info, could it make sense to pause this process, even if there isn’t an active, or full, SC temporarily?
posted by snofoam at 6:11 PM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]


The SC is not responsible for responding to flags.
(On preview, Brandon Blatcher has already said this; just to clarify the SC has agreed and aligned with this as well.)
posted by aielen at 6:13 PM on March 22, 2023 [1 favorite]


Thanks Rock 'em Sock 'em, for your words and patience. I think I should say I'm not the only one on the SC who has put in time and effort. Am grateful for the SC members who are keeping things going, and this month I've particularly appreciated Rhaomi's efforts to lead the running of these SC self-nominations and elections.
posted by aielen at 6:34 PM on March 22, 2023 [8 favorites]


Just want to say thanks again to the inaugural steering committee members and the folks considering a position in the upcoming roster. Assuming we're all clear on the legal side, I do plan to offer help as a volunteer contributor this year and I'll be in touch. Many hands, etc.
posted by mochapickle at 6:50 PM on March 22, 2023 [4 favorites]


Posting on the go, apologies if this comes off a little scattered!

We've talked about this previously, but the biggest curveball we ran into starting out was the cash crunch. The site normally does a summer fundraiser to shore things up, but last year's was delayed by the process of setting up the SC itself and left things in a much more precarious state than they usually are. Loup and Jessamyn let us know about the situation, but they didn't require, ask, or even suggest we do anything about it ourselves (beyond maybe post an appeal for contributions in MeTa). Everything we've done as MeFites to rally community support for the site have been our own ideas (or those of non-SC volunteers) undertaken of our own initiative, partially as a way to experiment with what works and what doesn't for future reference.

It was very successful, but also very improvisational, and a different sort of challenge than what we expected with the original 4 hours/month time estimate. One consequence of this was that we lacked the structure to organize ourselves efficiently. Some folks had the skills, drive, and availability to play key roles in making their initiatives successful (for example aielen's meticulous surveys of the fundraising numbers), while others had less capacity and helped on the margins where they could. Some members had stretches where they couldn't participate at all, and had a harder time catching up with what they'd missed later. It's a recipe for questions getting neglected or initiatives getting overly dependent on the most engaged members, and it's one of the aspects we're looking to improve by making sure every broad topic (code, communication, etc.) has somebody keeping an eye on it in a balanced way, along with asking people to try to maintain a baseline level of presence in our discussions day-to-day. (A baseline that is basically the same as what people here do every day reading and commenting in MetaTalk.)

I'm glad jessamyn is investigating the concerns some people raised about the SC's role, and we're prepared to make whatever sort of changes she thinks are needed based on that. But the way I see it, the staff (including the part-time code/administrative roles the fundraiser helped provide for) are the ones responsible for the heavy lifting of stuff like maintaining the codebase, handling legal paperwork, or being on-call for scheduled times to perform ongoing work to run the site proper. The SC, meanwhile, should be involved in higher-level strategizing, community-based volunteer efforts like the holiday gift exchange, or in the basic internal functions of the SC itself like voting/commenting/monthly meetings (which are independent of the staff and not even viewable to them). That's my personal view anyway, others have their own take on what sort of role the SC should ideally play. But as I said in the post up top, that's ultimately a question that's up to the SC membership to decide as a whole, and not something that's been imposed on us by loup or jessamyn or anybody else.

[On preview, thanks to BB and aielen for clarifying the flags question. On a similar note, the SC is not responsible for staff management operations like hiring/firing, scheduling, payments, etc., just communicating our goals and keeping track of the results. Also, not sure what the issue with accommodations is -- we ask that so we can ensure the platforms we're using are responsive to people's needs.]
posted by Rhaomi at 7:00 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]


speaking in a personal capacity:

I have to gently clarify that while I appreciate the spirit of what Rhaomi has said, and value Rhaomi's efforts to run the self-nominations and elections process, I personally would not agree about:

- "Loup and Jessamyn let us know about the situation, but they didn't require, ask, or even suggest we do anything about it ourselves (beyond maybe post an appeal for contributions in MeTa)."
(To be clear: I respect and value Loup and Jessamyn's role and work in MetaFilter - just disagreeing with this particular characterization of what the situation was and how things happened.)

- "Everything we've done as MeFites to rally community support for the site have been our own ideas (or those of non-SC volunteers) undertaken of our own initiative, partially as a way to experiment with what works and what doesn't for future reference." -> The initiatives and projects the SC has prioritized, undertaken and planned have not simply been "our own ideas": more details about the general process here.

- The characterization of the site's financial situation (i.e. the reference to the "cash crunch"). Yes, the site normally does a summer fundraiser, but imo the delay of the fundraiser was not the fundamental or even primary reason why the site was (and still is) in financial crisis. The numbers, history and situation outlined in the fundraising drive's financial summary, say as much.

This is me speaking personally though - I accept different SC members may have different ideas/impressions of things, and I hope these points I've weighed in on will not detract from the main conversation here, or Rhaomi's general appeal/post.
posted by aielen at 7:40 PM on March 22, 2023 [17 favorites]


Can we get an updated schedule concerning the election, appointments and terms?
posted by NotLost at 7:44 PM on March 22, 2023

One consequence of this was that we lacked the structure to organize ourselves efficiently. Some folks had the skills, drive, and availability to play key roles in making their initiatives successful
With respect and appreciation of the heroic efforts that the SC has undertaken, this is a description of every volunteer organization that I've ever worked with. It's a chaotic amalgamation of people who believe in the cause, and a moderately-high priority for a handful of those people at any given time.

It's amazing and great when volunteers are able to step up to the plate and contribute in a helpful way. However, it's quite another thing to expect this out of your entire slate of volunteers.

The unwritten contract of a volunteer organization is that the org casts a wide net, takes whenever it can get from its volunteers, and doesn't ask for more. Unlike the professional world, where your employees are receiving renumeration for their work, no such thing exists for volunteers, and you will immediately burn everybody out the moment that any sort of pressure is applied, or a "hustle" is expected.

Apply pressure, and your volunteers will vanish. Your volunteers already have plenty of stress from their existing familial and professional obligations – they don't want more of that. I've personally seen more than one nonprofit disintegrate after a new president started doling out tasks and deadlines to an existing base of dedicated volunteers.

You're applying a lot of pressure here.
posted by schmod at 8:14 PM on March 22, 2023 [10 favorites]


Schmod, do you have any specific, concrete suggestions?
posted by NotLost at 8:48 PM on March 22, 2023


schmod
It's amazing and great when volunteers are able to step up to the plate and contribute in a helpful way. However, it's quite another thing to expect this out of your entire slate of volunteers.

To clarify - the responsibilities outlined in this post are meant to apply to the SC specifically, not non-SC volunteers. Non-SC volunteers are not expected to commit to specific hours of work, and the SC does not place pressure on non-SC volunteers to put in hours or adhere to any more work than they volunteer/suggest themselves.

For the SC in particular to function, the general intention in outlining some specific responsibilities and an updated time commitment (from the original 4 hrs/month) was to encourage SC members to agree, understand and work towards a common baseline level of activity and internal communication. It's understandable that not everyone can commit to a more explicit expectation of hours and tasks - and if this is the case, volunteering in a non-SC capacity may be a better option.

Right now we're somewhat between a rock and a hard place, trying to make sure SC members come in with expectations and preparedness that match the reality of the organization's needs (given its current state) - while also not wanting to, like you mentioned, place additional pressure/demands on SC members. The site's situation, and its inherent challenges, are pressure in themselves. I appreciate that there has been discussion and input on these issues - the way forward seems to be a balancing act; right now there may not be a perfect solution, but hopefully these conversations will help us all get closer to a better, workable way forward.
posted by aielen at 9:34 PM on March 22, 2023 [3 favorites]


I mean, the workable way forward is for the site to pay people who are doing that sort of work. Or to have the already-being-paid people do that sort of work.
posted by lapis at 9:36 PM on March 22, 2023 [22 favorites]


Thanks aielen, I definitely agree that there was a time sensitivity to the budget situation, specifically that we'd planned to do a fundraising push later until we found that the situation was more urgent than expected. I guess my point was more that loup et al didn't ask us to do anything concrete wrt fundraising beyond the sort of general sitewide fundraising appeal cortex and mathowie had done in years past, and that the various fundraising avenues (auction, events, etc) were SC+grassroots-driven ideas that we identified and decided to pursue independently, as opposed to deliverables that they assigned to us. That was a major rationale for the SC, after all -- to establish a way to channel community ideas into reality by empowering volunteer contributors who had long felt overlooked. I'm so incredibly proud of everyone who's taken part in that process, both on the SC and off. ❤️

NotLost, the plan as of this post is to accept nominations through till the BIPOC board meeting this weekend, see what recommendations they and the staff have identified, and then vote the last week of March, with an opportunity for people to answer questions and talk about their bid. Depending on the numbers we may take a page from the original Transition Team plan and include everyone who wants to volunteer, but even then there still needs to be a chance for people to explain their vision for the site and what they want to contribute, imho.

schmod, my experience has been that *not* designating focuses leads to imbalance and disconnect. One of the best examples of it for working for us in practice early on was defining rotating meeting roles -- assigning one person to align schedules, another to host, a third to take notes, and sticking to an agenda that laid out who wanted to talk about which topics and when. Having that structure made the meetings much smoother and more productive than they would have been otherwise. Lacking such structure means a given task often either gets overlooked or that the most engaged people overextend themselves. Applying that structure to more organized SC roles (in the sense of a point person for thinking about/tracking/communicating with staff, volunteers, and users on a broad topic area) would be a big improvement for the next SC in terms of making it both more productive and more sustainable.

lapis, we're already making progress in that direction by designating some funding for part-time programming and administrative support roles -- think extra dev time for feature improvements, or more in-depth activity reports. Loup is preparing calls for those positions now. Bigger structural changes are on the table ofc, so if you have a vision for a better way to organize things your input is welcome as a member, a volunteer contributors, or an SC nominee if you want to make that your primary focus.

[Closing note: I've spent at least ~4 combined hours over the last few days preparing this post, discussing it with the SC/staff, and reading and responding to people here. Under the original SC terms, that would be my total SC activity for *all of March*, or 1/6th of an entire term. That clearly isn't conducive to getting anything done, which is why we increased the estimated time to an hour or so per day. But just reiterating that this estimate is a rule of thumb (some days are quiet while today was unusually busy), and it refers to time spent on any sort of SC activity, including just reading and commenting like I've been doing here. Speaking as somebody who has spent as much time researching an FPP or following a long megathread, it ain't nothing, but it's not exactly a job either, and feels like a sustainable pace for a volunteer role. And on that note, I got work in the morning and need to get some sleep -- goodnight, y'all, and thanks for being here.]
posted by Rhaomi at 10:31 PM on March 22, 2023 [5 favorites]


NotLost: Schmod, do you have any specific, concrete suggestions?

I am not Schmod, but one very specific suggestion comes to mind.

For background, I’ve done a lot of volunteer work through the years, sometimes in ad hoc groups, and sometimes in committees in larger organizations.

One thing that’s struck me in discussions by and about the Steering Committee is that it sounds a lot more like an ad hoc group rather than a committee. I realize that that the specifics of the funding situation called for an ad hoc group, but if the steering committee is supposed to be sustainable and not lead to overwork and stress for its members, it needs to be a committee.

My suggestion is that the last task of the Steering Committee before the new members come in, should be to set up a clear structure. It doesn’t even really need to be the whole committee, but even just a subcommittee.

I don’t want to ask you to do more, as you’ve all already done an incredible job, but to me it sounds like there needs to be more structure.

Humanity has spent thousands of years figuring out ways of working efficiently in groups, so that it’s fulfilling and sustainable. A committee is a set of practices and methods, that can consider issues and make decisions quickly. It is less flexible and creative than the ad hoc group, but it is a lot easier on its members. A rigid structure is sometimes too rigid, but it gives support in a way that a looser process just doesn’t.
posted by Kattullus at 11:33 PM on March 22, 2023 [9 favorites]


(Rhaomi - I think we have different personal views, understanding and experiences to the discussion/situation around fundraising and communication with stakeholder groups (and hope we can continue to discuss this internally, not necessarily here). I don't want this to influence the discussion here though - and I really appreciate your efforts here.)
posted by aielen at 11:43 PM on March 22, 2023


Yes to more structure. Lack of structure means time frittered away in process discussions. I suggest borrowing a model from an existing body. Typically the role of secretary, for instance, is in charge of setting and communicating meeting dates and documentation, consistently.
posted by Miko at 5:37 AM on March 23, 2023 [10 favorites]


Closing note: I've spent at least ~4 combined hours over the last few days preparing this post, discussing it with the SC/staff, and reading and responding to people here. Under the original SC terms, that would be my total SC activity for *all of March*, or 1/6th of an entire term. That clearly isn't conducive to getting anything done

I disagree. The effort you have put into constructing this thread and your responses is getting something done.

After all the back and forth in these threads, I still do not know why the SC (or whoever is setting these expectations) is expecting heroic amounts of daily task work from an unpaid "committee" that most people, especially those with full time jobs, would find unreasonable.
posted by wondermouse at 6:15 AM on March 23, 2023 [12 favorites]


As always in these threads, the expectations of volunteers are ridiculous. It’s no surprise that you can’t find even six people willing to do this work.

And again, the powers that be (I guess jessamyn, because it sure isn’t the SC) should seriously consider whether paid moderation is really the best possible use of Metafilter’s limited funds.
posted by crazy with stars at 6:55 AM on March 23, 2023 [15 favorites]


If nothing else, I think there'd have to be a massive reconfiguration in how members talk to and about moderators here, and the level of personalization demanded, if moderators were volunteers.
posted by sagc at 7:26 AM on March 23, 2023

Schmod, do you have any specific, concrete suggestions?
I agree with nearly everything that Kattullus and Rock ‘em Sock ‘em wrote.

I also don’t disagree with Rhaomi that defined focuses and responsibilities are a good thing. However, once those responsibilities start looking like a [poorly-defined] job-description, it might be time to step back and re-evaluate. A volunteer board shouldn’t need to be tracking the hours of its volunteers to make sure that they’re putting in enough work!

There does not appear to be much evidence of focus or clarity in the current postings. I think we’re probably both in agreement that the ideal outcome is to be able to have a clearly defined list of roles and responsibilities for the SC, so we can say: “The secretary is expected to do X, and the previous person spent Y hours per week doing it.”.

Instead, you’ve set a fairly direct expectation that the SC operates in constant firefighting-mode, and requires the constant attention of all of its members. While that’s great for certain personality types (mine included!), it’s not remotely sustainable. You need to figure out how to dig yourselves out of this hole.

I also want to emphasize others’ concerns that these requirements are going to yield a committee that is not representative of the community at large. It’s going to produce a system that’s governed by the people who have the most free time.

If you want an extremely specific and concrete recommendation, here’s mine:
Abandon the current election process. Elect or appoint an interim board for 2 months whose sole job is to determine the structure, mission, and goals for the board moving forward. After 2 months pass, hold an election for the new SC (following whatever election process the interim board decides on).

During that time, we will also hopefully have some clarification from the site’s legal counsel about the direction that the future SC can/should take.
The hope was that the first SC would have done this, but it seems to have been neglected due to [what were seen as] more-urgent priorities, many of which were indeed legitimate.

However, this also burned out half of the SC, and has led to a considerable amount of strife from the community. Now that the most-urgent fires have been put out, let’s appoint a dedicated group of folks to think about how this should work moving forward, before we throw a new group of volunteers into the grinder.

This will also buy us some time to seek clarification on the legal issues. (If nothing else, I do not think that it’s appropriate to move forward while that question remains open)

We didn’t get this right on the first try, and that’s OK! There should be no shame in stepping back, pressing pause, and figuring out how we can do this better next time.
posted by schmod at 7:28 AM on March 23, 2023 [34 favorites]


I think everyone agrees that having a sustainable community structure would be good. Part of sustainability is having 1) the necessary labor, and 2) the money to keep the lights on. Which of those is most urgent to focus on really depends on the supply and demand for both. It sounds like SC focused on #2, at the expense of not having the time to develop a sustainable structure for #1. That may have been the right call at that moment. Now that the financial situation is somewhat more stable, I share schmod's hope that SC can figure out #1.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:54 AM on March 23, 2023 [5 favorites]


I really like schmod's recommendation. There honestly doesn't seem much point continuing with the current process. The workload is too great to be viable, the number of candidates is likely too small for a plausible election.

We can't just do the same thing as last time and expect a different result. We need a clearer, narrower remit for the SC, and workload requirements that won't burn people out.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:55 AM on March 23, 2023 [3 favorites]


I like schmod's recommendation as well.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2023


I think electing an entirely new group of people seems like starting again from scratch. The staggered term election system is good for keeping continuity and fostering institutional memory, and going back to the drawing board seems unnecessary.

The basic system seems sound, and the people who were elected to the Steering Committee have experience that no one else has, and so it seems best to me that they work out the structure of the Steering Committee going forward.

Setting up committee rules is a fairly simple process, and the members of the committee have shown themselves to be industrious and knowledgeable, and I for one trust them to do it, which is why I suggested it upthread.

While I imagine that any interim committee would be made up of an equally fine set of people, I don’t see the necessity of going through an extra set of elections.
posted by Kattullus at 10:22 AM on March 23, 2023 [11 favorites]


For whatever it’s worth, I also agree that we should not break continuity with the current SC. My proposal doesn’t address that, but if we adopt something like it, we shouldn’t start from scratch (unless any of the current or departing committee members have strong feelings to the contrary).

My main point is that the SC needs to dedicate time towards figuring out what it wants to be, and should be prepared to “reboot” the committee once that’s done. (Also, it feels weird to be electing a new committee to an entire term with the potential legal issues hovering above us)

Instead of calling it an “interim board,” we could shorten and recharacterize the upcoming SC term (or any number of things).
posted by schmod at 10:50 AM on March 23, 2023 [5 favorites]


Also: I’m very sympathetic to the fact that elections are obnoxious to run for an organization like this – I’ve been there, and I fully believe the number of hours that Rhaomi needed to put into this. I don’t want to throw away that effort, and my suggestion to run another election in 2 months was not made lightly.

As part of your long-term planning, I’d also encourage you to appoint an election czar or committee that has no other responsibilities. Elections are infrequent, but they require a lot of work when they do come up. There’s a good chance that you’ll be able to find a volunteer who’s interested in that work, but can’t commit to sitting on the SC full-time. (The optics are also quite a bit better when a relative-outsider handles this process)
posted by schmod at 10:56 AM on March 23, 2023 [7 favorites]


schmod, your ideas about burnout are incorrect. While I won’t say that there isn’t some of that, at least half (on a very quick count) of the departing members are leaving for reasons relating to their personal lives — changes in work, health, their families, etc rather than exhaustion at doing the work of the committee. If my life hadn’t taken some radical changes just after joining the committee, I wouldn’t be leaving. It really doesn’t help to imagine what is going on in SC members’ minds.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:42 PM on March 23, 2023 [7 favorites]


at least half (on a very quick count) of the departing members are leaving for reasons relating to their personal lives — changes in work, health, their families, etc rather than exhaustion at doing the work of the committee.

You all may be leaving before the point of burnout but it’s not out of line to talk about the fact that these positions, as currently structured, are a high burnout risk. Unsustainable commitments are what produces burnout. If a voluntary commitment cannot sit comfortably alongside the demands of a typical human life and the inevitable changes it involves, then people leave because they know continuing the commitment would produce burnout. It’s a burnout-inducing role. Those who have left have correctly predicted it’s too demanding to pursue without burning out.

Reducing the demand through better-structured advisory work would mean increasing the number of people who could Opt in and also increasing the capacity of people to do it without burning out.

Right now you’re asking a real lot. Most adults with the skills needed simply cannot make this extremely high commitment of time. Some can, but the life window in which they can will likely be as short as the window this first group could commit. It’s not sustainable.
posted by Miko at 8:27 PM on March 23, 2023 [19 favorites]


I'm on the SC, and I don't feel burnt out. I think SC members largely pick their own commitment level. I can't put a huge amount of time into it because of other things. I have to draw strong boundaries because of them and my financial situation. (I honestly feel like I've slacked off, but the way I see it, that's why there's 12 positions, to dilute the responsibility.)
posted by JHarris at 12:44 AM on March 24, 2023 [4 favorites]


The roles defined (secretarial, comms, bizdev, etc.)

Sorry, are these roles actually defined anywhere? I didn't see them here or in the last thread. I've got some coding expertise and some free time and I think I could probably do something valuable on a technical level. I'm a bit wary about nominating myself for the SC as I'm hoping not to have as much free time in the medium-term future, and I feel like I'd be more useful at (and, selfishly, am more interested in) specific tech-focused tasks than the general rule-making and staff / community interfacing that seems to be what the SC is for. (I did fill out the volunteer form, but haven't heard back.)
posted by whir at 4:29 AM on March 24, 2023 [4 favorites]


The roles defined (secretarial, comms, bizdev, etc.)
Sorry, are these roles actually defined anywhere? I didn't see them here or in the last thread


I may be wrong, but I believe that it may be better to read it "the roles implied" rather than "the roles defined". The consistent emphasis seems to have been on the fluidity of SC members' roles.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 7:10 AM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]


- The characterization of the site's financial situation (i.e. the reference to the "cash crunch"). Yes, the site normally does a summer fundraiser, but imo the delay of the fundraiser was not the fundamental or even primary reason why the site was (and still is) in financial crisis. The numbers, history and situation outlined in the fundraising drive's financial summary, say as much.

If the site is still in financial crisis, can anyone discuss how the decision was made to hire another mod? Was the SC consulted?

Schmod, my apologies for deleting your comment! In my haste of catching up with flags after a break in our power outage here in my city, I nixed the comment without fully processing what thread I was in. My power then went back out before I could review my deletions. I've reinstated the original comment.

This is pretty troubling. This anodyne comment was deleted without anyone checking on the context of the discussion? Was this a response to a flag? If so, is that a normal response to flagged comments?
posted by JimBennett at 11:14 AM on March 24, 2023 [6 favorites]


Is it troubling? Or is it an honest flub that was reversed and thereby remedied? Some mountains are, in fact, molehills.
posted by kensington314 at 11:41 AM on March 24, 2023 [16 favorites]


I wonder if it could be reasonable to have SC candidates who are ready to commit to a monthly meeting and a couple hours a month of chat, and make that the actual SC commitment, and just consider everything else to be volunteer work that SC members could also choose to do, but are not obligated to do.
posted by snofoam at 2:44 PM on March 24, 2023 [17 favorites]


Snofoam, this was something I clumsily expressed in the last thread. Definitely agree.
posted by freethefeet at 3:03 PM on March 24, 2023 [2 favorites]


That's pretty much how I see the position, snofoam? Most of the things that I've seen done haven't been things we have to do, but things we want to do? If I was being asked to put my name up to be elected to do tasks that had to be done I wouldn't have nominated myself, I couldn't have nominated myself. I feel like the expectation upon SC members as seen here is in excess of the reality, but then I've always been a pretty laid back member.
posted by JHarris at 3:05 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]


Like, the fundraiser felt like a major responsibility and the site might stop existing without it, so we jumped in. I didn't see it as much as our responsibility as something we should do, especially since the fundraiser that usually happened in November was put off because of the elections.

On that subject. Statements that the site is still in crisis are technically true in the sense that donations naturally trail off over time, and we don't have many substantive forms of income that aren't donations. But it's not the same kind of crisis that we were in back in November, it's definitely lessened the pressure.

The Steering Committee is composed of a bunch of well-meaning, very earnest people who want the site to continue and prosper. I feel like that earnestness has caused us in the first round of SC members to chip in a lot of time and effort.
posted by JHarris at 3:46 PM on March 24, 2023 [3 favorites]


JHarris, I see the first SC as a group of people that chose to do so much more than they might have signed up for because they were a bunch of stand up folks who saw a need and stepped up to the plate to do that. And you all are great for doing that.

I made my suggestion because the current call for nominees positions the SC as something very different, as far as responsibilities and time commitment, etc and I legitimately wonder if there is space on the same SC for people who are ready to participate in a 4 hr/month advisory role and people that are all-in on a 10 hr/week role, since those are two very different things.
posted by snofoam at 4:40 PM on March 24, 2023 [7 favorites]


Fundraising seems to have been the biggest part of the SC's workload.

The Steering Committee was created in August 2022. Metafilter has existed since 1999.

Who was doing the fundraising between 1999 and 2022?

Jessamyn is the owner of the site. I think she should know the following things.
  1. What are the functions of this business
  2. Which units within the business carry out these functions
  3. The job descriptions within those units list those functions
Is the SC's job to do fundraising? If so the responsibilities and roles above should list it. If not, whose job is it?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:16 PM on March 24, 2023 [4 favorites]


keyword fundraiser in metatalk as to who, I think it was largely automated.

Which units within the business carry out these functions
can you expand on "units".
posted by clavdivs at 10:20 PM on March 24, 2023


can you expand on "units".

As I understand it, the current and potential business units within Metafilter are:
  1. Site owner
  2. Paid moderators and technical staff
  3. Steering Committee
  4. BIPOC advisory board
  5. Volunteer Contributors

posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:32 PM on March 24, 2023 [1 favorite]


One thing I note is that the size of the steering committee seems to be pretty large compared to what one might expect for a body of its sort at a nonprofit, a membership organization like a club, or a for-profit company. The number 12 members may have been arrived at with the thought that more hands make lighter work. But when the expectation of up to 10 hours a week on committee tasks is laid out, of which maybe about half consists of just keeping up on internal communications, it seems clear to me that one of the major contributors to the oversized workload of committee members is the sheer size of the committee itself and attendent volume of communication generated.

I'm personally not of the mind that this is a problem that should or needs to be solved immediately by bringing the nomination/election process to a screaching halt and starting over. But I do think serious thought should be given during the next cycle to how the very choice of size and structure for the SC is making it difficult to attract/retain SC members and for the SC to perform its roles effectively.
posted by drlith at 7:52 AM on March 25, 2023 [17 favorites]


[O]ne of the major contributors to the oversized workload of committee members is the sheer size of the committee itself and attendent volume of communication generated...I'm personally not of the mind that this is a problem that should or needs to be solved immediately by bringing the nomination/election process to a screaching halt and starting over. But I do think serious thought should be given during the next cycle to how the very choice of size and structure for the SC is making it difficult to attract/retain SC members and for the SC to perform its roles effectively

I agree with this completely. There is a lot of great energy here from dedicated people, but the current structure is working against it rather than facilitating and encouraging it.

In the last discussion, I suggested that it might be worth it for Jessamyn and the SC to consider hiring an independent expert to take a good look at possible business/governance structures and mechanisms for Metafilter and make some concrete recommendations on how to proceed. It's not an urgent issue in the sense that it should not block efforts to address ongoing operational issues, but getting a good solid handle on this will serve the enterprise well going forward. At a minimum, it would free up some of the energy spent in these long MeTas. As before, I'd be happy to contribute to a dedicated GoFundMe or other mechanism to finance such a project.

In the meantime, many thanks to all of you who are stepping up.
posted by rpfields at 9:45 AM on March 26, 2023 [5 favorites]


Any updates on this at all? This was supposed to be updated after the March 25th BIPOC meeting.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:19 AM on March 28, 2023 [3 favorites]


I guess not, then.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:47 AM on March 29, 2023 [2 favorites]


Updates are inevitable and imminent. Just not yet. They will come.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:53 AM on March 29, 2023 [2 favorites]


update
posted by Vatnesine at 5:02 PM on March 29, 2023 [2 favorites]


« Older Would more youtube content be appreciated? Discuss   |   [MeFi Site Update] March 22nd Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments