Difference between revisions of "Trustee engagement"
From AwesomeWiki
(→Notes from Greg) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Notes from Greg == | == Notes from Greg == | ||
| − | + | - Meeting with grant winners engages trustees and connects them to the projects they're funding. | |
| + | - Boston has 26 members, so about 10-14 show up each time and vote on two grants. | ||
| + | - Halifax has 30 members, and does three rounds (first round prune, finalist selection, judging a live event) with 10 people, so everyone plays a role somewhere in the funnel. | ||
| + | - In SF, forming personal relationships between the trustees has helped sustain things. | ||
| + | - In Pittsburgh, meetings are very inefficient, because they're basically social events. Wine, beer, and food slow down the voting, in a good way :) No virtual call ins allowed. | ||
| + | - | ||
[[category:Saturday]] | [[category:Saturday]] | ||
[[category:Operations]] | [[category:Operations]] | ||
Revision as of 12:40, 21 July 2012
Contents |
How do we keep our trustees excited and engaged?
Notes from Greg
- Meeting with grant winners engages trustees and connects them to the projects they're funding. - Boston has 26 members, so about 10-14 show up each time and vote on two grants. - Halifax has 30 members, and does three rounds (first round prune, finalist selection, judging a live event) with 10 people, so everyone plays a role somewhere in the funnel. - In SF, forming personal relationships between the trustees has helped sustain things. - In Pittsburgh, meetings are very inefficient, because they're basically social events. Wine, beer, and food slow down the voting, in a good way :) No virtual call ins allowed. -
