Before I went to the notary, I thought a club needed a minimum of three board members, but I was wrong, only one is needed. The notary explained to me that the advantage is that this keeps things simple, as for some things signatures of the board members are needed, and with only one you don't need to send stuff around the world. The disadvantage is that all "power" is concentrated into one person. I'm still going for it, because we're using the legal club entity setup as a means, not a goal, and this keeps things simple for what's required for the legal entity.
Also, I propose to separate technical community administration from the "social" (or whatever you want to name it) aspect. This is my magic sauce to keep things healthy. Well, that's what I'm aiming for at least, I'm not an expert at these things
The exact organisation I have in mind is as follows.
The Chairman heads and assigns the main members of the support team:
- Hosting and system administration
One person could perform multiple roles, but multiple people can also perform one role. For example, multiple people could do the phpBB and mediaWiki maintenance and modding. The chairman only assigns one person to a role, the head, and that person can assign others to help out as deemed fit.
The chairman and the support team, as such, handle the technical nature of running this club.
I'll elaborate about the exact nature of these roles in other posts.
The other side of running a community is handled by the club management team headed by the club master:
- Club & forum master
- Wiki master
- IRC & social networking sites (twitter, facebook) master
The club master and forum master are two roles in one, I don't think it is necessary or desirable to split this at this point in time, to keep things simple.
The club master assigns the wiki and IRC master and heads the team. Deskthority has an (unused) twitter and facebook account, for now I assigned these to the IRC master's responsibility.
These people can get help as deemed fit to get their job done.
The chairman and club master are electable positions. Their roles should be seen as guardians, not dictators.
The chairman and support team cannot get involved into issues such as moderation, forum rules, forum social direction, etc., and have no power over such issues, except that the chairman has veto power over any decision by the club management team which changes the nature of the club but wasn't decided by member vote. This power should be used sparingly by exception.
The club master is the "social" leader of the forum.
He must be an initiator and motivator, in a very broad scope, and the type of active member who doesn't run off for months.
In other ways, I expect him to be more like a guardian of the club's free mind, and do very little concerning some things. Such as moderation or rule enforcement, which are his or her responsibility. Very little has served us well in this respect, and has attracted an intelligent audience of individuals who don't need some punks to tell them what they may or may not say. This may be harder than it seems, the club master must be able to keep his hands off even if he doesn't like a particular example of free speech, because he sees the bigger scope. Note that the club master cannot set major house rules, these are set by members by vote.