Better version of this: elect (some of) the trustees (for fixed-term limits).
Who would be the electorate? You could use GWWC members, former EAG attendees, or have EV/CEA as a fee-paying members society—which is extremely common in charities. None of these are perfect, but they are all in the ballpark of the right group. If you randomise, you still face the issue of who are you randomising from. If it’s just a group of people who volunteer themselves, you could equally use that group as an electorate.
Electing would probably require a significant change to the organizations’ foundational legal documents, so this is likely a medium/long term term plan rather than a viable option for adding seats that need to be added promptly.
If you did this, I would suggest the electorate be a randomly selected sample of the eligible population to encourage electors to invest time in making the best decision. Once you reach a certain number, adding more electors from the same eligibility pool isn’t going to meaningfully increase electorate diversity but will only diffuse individual electors’ sense of responsibility.
Yes, I agree it’s not practical to do it immediately, but getting to that stage later would require people various people thinking it’s a good plan in the first place.
Better version of this: elect (some of) the trustees (for fixed-term limits).
Who would be the electorate? You could use GWWC members, former EAG attendees, or have EV/CEA as a fee-paying members society—which is extremely common in charities. None of these are perfect, but they are all in the ballpark of the right group. If you randomise, you still face the issue of who are you randomising from. If it’s just a group of people who volunteer themselves, you could equally use that group as an electorate.
Electing would probably require a significant change to the organizations’ foundational legal documents, so this is likely a medium/long term term plan rather than a viable option for adding seats that need to be added promptly.
If you did this, I would suggest the electorate be a randomly selected sample of the eligible population to encourage electors to invest time in making the best decision. Once you reach a certain number, adding more electors from the same eligibility pool isn’t going to meaningfully increase electorate diversity but will only diffuse individual electors’ sense of responsibility.
Yes, I agree it’s not practical to do it immediately, but getting to that stage later would require people various people thinking it’s a good plan in the first place.