Difference between revisions of "Trustee engagement"

Revision as of 16:08, 2 August 2012

Breaking this into major themes I see.

Meeting with grant winners engages trustees and connects them to the projects they're funding.
Regular structure with people signed on to it makes people more likely to be able to attend.
Food collects money in $300 chunks to make operations roll smoother, given their virtual distributed nature

Boston has 26 members, so about 10-14 show up each time and vote on two grants.
Halifax has 30 members, and does three cycles (first and finalist selection, judging a live event, one set off) with 10 people, so everyone plays a role somewhere in the funnel
Bigger org makes closeness in a big group harder. You become a bit more of a blob and a bit less of a "team"
Bigger group means lower commitment, less connection. Balance!

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
Food is virtual, so people don't know each other irl, but still has lively discussions.

Boston let about 10 people in at once. It may have "saved the chapter"
New York had a big turnover at once, as the original trustees got too busy or too famous. Bringing in new blood changed the culture and established new norms
Set norms with the active people, then invite more people to 'soft replace' the flakier people
More people spreads responsibility, gets you more money to utilize
Guest / Honorary trustees (like the mayor!) are a good source of fresh excitement
New people give busy people the opp to back out gracefully since they're not letting people down

Major split seems to be between "silent awesome" and "go for famo"
Detroit once reconvened to overturn a grant because one trustee decided the selected project didn't set the right tone for the group. Don't be afraid to speak up after decisions are made. Be diplomatic and sensitive when communicating like this.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 * 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
+* Halifax has 30 members, and does three cycles (first and finalist selection, judging a live event, one set off) with 10 people, so everyone plays a role somewhere in the funnel
 * Bigger org makes closeness in a big group harder. You become a bit more of a blob and a bit less of a "team"
+* Bigger group means lower commitment, less connection. Balance!
 === On Group Harmony ===