A History of MIA Voting Practices by Brian Baggins 22 August 2000 20:50 UTC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For two years the decision-making of our organization functioned with essentially two people making consensus decisions on a daily basis -- David and myself. Every director and volunteer operated on an essentially independent basis, the overall decisions David and I were making, from style to structure to content, to bringing on new directors and volunteers, seldom got in anyone's way or disturbed anyone's work. Most of the time, we in fact enhanced people's work, bringing on new volunteers, making the look of the site much better, the content more accessible, etc. As time progressed, we would try to get more directors involved in decision-making, but usually people were not interested; largely because no one disagreed with the decisions David and I would make from day-to-day. An enormous amount of this is due to the fact that David and I are, in good political fashion, very much opposites; when we can hammer out an agreement between ourselves, it is rare when this causes problems with others. Throughout these two years, everyone was largely amicable with what we did and what we decided, but every once awhile, perhaps once every three months, someone would raise objections to a particular decision, and soon we were able to amicably resolve the issue by consensus. There were two times however, which most of us vividly recall, that this was not the case. David and I had the mutual understanding that if we ever could not amicably resolve an issue amongst ourselves, or with whoever raised objections to a decision we made, then it would be necessary for us to call a general vote. On two occasions, the debate was too fundamental, the difference in opinion too separate, for us to agree, thus necessitating the first and second calls to vote in MIA history. The first issue was putting Mao into the reference archive, the second was keeping the four photographs on the main page image. Both votes stand to this day, being decided by a majority, of a single vote. But this is not to say these votes went on easily, because they did not. At the time we had no organizational structure through which to vote, no set precedence of any kind on how to vote. Shortly after the main page vote (which had been particularly tangled-up), I suggested to David that we create a form of bylaws, so we had voting procedures set down in concrete, to which we could solidly refer to in times of trouble and heated arguments. Soon however, David led me to see that this was not necessary, precisely because of how we relatively operated -- such structures or rules were not really necessary in our "embryonic" state. In our history we had only two votes, everything else we had been able to resolve by consensus. More than a year later, as we continued to grow, the decisions David and I were making became of more interest to MIA directors, so we set out to establish definite democratic practices and make ourselves a legal nonprofit organization. By March 8th, 2000, I made the first draft of our bylaws, probably about three-fourths of which still exists in our current bylaws. I sent these off to David, and on March 10th we had a very long and thoughtful telephone discussion about them. Several points were made, and many amendments and additions were made in accordance. On the same day I sent a 'final' copy of our bylaws and articles of incorporation to the mailing list, explaining these decisions as was typical in these times -- David and I had come to agree on these bylaws and articles of incorporation, and encouraged objections, questions and/or comments. At this time I did not keep records of e-mail I received, so what the response was I cannot accurately render today. I do remember there were several responses, all agreeable with minor points which were added or explained. Through and through, by March 21st, David and I entered into a discussion recognizing that everyone had accepted the bylaws and articles of incorporation, and thus discussed moves to legally incorporate us, which suffice it to say the U.S. government delayed us the right until last month. The bylaws were thus put into use my David and myself, first publicly referenced and used on March 30th (Juan's reception of an offer to allow us to use the Spanish texts). Three months would pass before it was decided these needed amendment, when on June 17th, we recognized the need for additional protection and organizational stability in an effort to prevent political takeover, sectarianism, and being bought out. Thus our Charter was created, and with it much discussion. There was a longer series of debates about the charter, which lasted until the first of July -- culminating in several additions and amendments, out of which some amendments were also made to the bylaws. After the long slew of debates, giving an additional week of breathing time and creating a finalised version of the charter and bylaws, there was a general call assuring consensus to the finalised version on July 11th, to which no one raised objections. From about the end of July, both David and I conferred on this once again, and both agreed that the new Charter was in effect.