DW and DH clarified the existing system: BOTLab members vote for and against each candidate, who is elected if #for > #against. This has no mechanism for regulating committee size except by limiting #candidates. Every year 1/3 of committee must step down for re-election. No aversion to increasing size of committee…
Concerns: system that we have favours incumbents, need to give new people a chance
TG: people need to understand that elections are happening and people can join the committee
DH: Issue with committee size - how do we regulate this?
Issue of new people and regulating sizes are different issues
Do we open up voting to the whole membership or just the people at the AGM?
TG: have an “associate committee” role in parallel with full committee members - give people an easy route into seeing how the committtee works - PN: perhaps treasurer needs an associate
2 posts will be available at next AGM
⇒ publicise better in advance of next AGM?
DH: Hackspace has many members who take part in running of the space/organisation without being on the committee - role of the committee is solely a way of formalising the decision-making process - ⇒ associates not really needed as yet, except for admin! ⇒ before the AGM, committee to discuss and publicise admin roles - ACTION
Committee also has a role for ensuring things are done - e.g. random emails from 3rd parties - could just be passed on to mailing list, but committee should filter
DH: perhaps there is a role for associates in taking a greater part in e.g. responding to incoming requests - “if anybody *wants* to have access to this list…” as an opt-in
Returning to discussion of mechanism: use counting of votes for and against, and choose people with strongest majority? but what if we have multiple unanimous votes?; people apply to specific roles? DH: important to be clear to everyone at the start of the meeting what the system is, e.g. there will be 5 committee members at the end of the meeting and votes count accordingly?
PN: have a set period to apply for election; if we have too many candidates *then* we decide how to deal with it?
TG: start by saying you have to be at the AGM to vote? With some proxy system to allow for input from people who are unable to attend?
TG: if we have too many candidates, get them all to cast lots for places? Only problem is if there is 1 person noone wants to work with…
Decision: General consensus on TG's proposal!