My sense is that the board is likely to remain fairly stable, and fairly consistently interested in this.
Would you trust a governing body on the basis of someone you don’t even personally know saying that their sense is that it’s alright?
all of your arguments about board members would also seem like they could apply to any electorate.
Only for a limited time period—elected officials have to stand for re-election, and separation and balance of powers help keep them in check in the meantime. Changes in the community are also reflected by new elections.
I personally think that community democracy would be the wrong governance structure for CEA, for reasons stated elsewhere
Could you please point to that ‘elsewhere’? I don’t think I’ve encountered your views on the matter.
Would you trust a governing body on the basis of someone you don’t even personally know saying that their sense is that it’s alright?
Probably not—I understand if this doesn’t update you much. I would suggest that you look at public records on what our board members do/have done, and see if you think that suggests that they would hold us accountable for this sort of thing. I admit that’s a costly thing to do. I would also suggest that you look at what CEA has done, especially during the most recent (most relevant) periods—this post highlights most of our key mistakes, and this sequence might give you a sense of positive things we achieved. You could also look at comments/posts I’ve written in order to get a sense of whether you can trust me.
I hope that helps a bit!
Only for a limited time period—elected officials have to stand for re-election, and separation and balance of powers help keep them in check in the meantime. Changes in the community are also reflected by new elections.
My point is that the electorate (not the elected representatives) can leave/new people can join the community. Also their opinions can change. So I don’t think it’s a very robust mechanism for the specific thing of making sure an organization follows through on things it said it would do. I think you’re right that your third point does apply though.
Could you please point to that ‘elsewhere’? I don’t think I’ve encountered your views on the matter.
I don’t literally argue for that position, but I think that the last section of this comment touches on my views.
Ok, I now get what you mean about the electorate. But I think (it’s been some time) my point was about responsibilities to the community rather than on following through.
Regarding the last point, I’m a bit confused because in parallel to this thread we’re discussing another one where I quoted this specific bit exactly, and you replied that it’s not about who should govern CEA, but one meta-level up from that (who decides on the governance structure).
Ah cool, yeah agree that democracy is pretty strongly designed around responsibilities to the community, so it’s probably better than an unelected board on that dimension.
The final paragraph in the comment I just linked to is about one-meta-level-up. The penultimate and antipenultimate paragraphs are just about the ideal governance structure. Sorry, that’s maybe a bit unclear.
I’m not sure I follow.
Would you trust a governing body on the basis of someone you don’t even personally know saying that their sense is that it’s alright?
Only for a limited time period—elected officials have to stand for re-election, and separation and balance of powers help keep them in check in the meantime. Changes in the community are also reflected by new elections.
Could you please point to that ‘elsewhere’? I don’t think I’ve encountered your views on the matter.
Probably not—I understand if this doesn’t update you much. I would suggest that you look at public records on what our board members do/have done, and see if you think that suggests that they would hold us accountable for this sort of thing. I admit that’s a costly thing to do. I would also suggest that you look at what CEA has done, especially during the most recent (most relevant) periods—this post highlights most of our key mistakes, and this sequence might give you a sense of positive things we achieved. You could also look at comments/posts I’ve written in order to get a sense of whether you can trust me.
I hope that helps a bit!
My point is that the electorate (not the elected representatives) can leave/new people can join the community. Also their opinions can change. So I don’t think it’s a very robust mechanism for the specific thing of making sure an organization follows through on things it said it would do. I think you’re right that your third point does apply though.
I don’t literally argue for that position, but I think that the last section of this comment touches on my views.
Ok, I now get what you mean about the electorate. But I think (it’s been some time) my point was about responsibilities to the community rather than on following through.
Regarding the last point, I’m a bit confused because in parallel to this thread we’re discussing another one where I quoted this specific bit exactly, and you replied that it’s not about who should govern CEA, but one meta-level up from that (who decides on the governance structure).
Ah cool, yeah agree that democracy is pretty strongly designed around responsibilities to the community, so it’s probably better than an unelected board on that dimension.
The final paragraph in the comment I just linked to is about one-meta-level-up. The penultimate and antipenultimate paragraphs are just about the ideal governance structure. Sorry, that’s maybe a bit unclear.