Are the 4 in-person board sprints necessary?

Speaking as a former board member, yes, the in-person meetings are absolutely valuable. The remote meetings are barely worth going to most of the time.

Every architecting-sprint I've been to has been at least 30x more productive than the months or years of online discussion leading up to it. A whiteboard is 100x more expressive than an IRC channel, or even a google doc. That's true for code, as well as management.

Let's be clear about what "valuable board members" means. Showing up doesn't make you valuable. Having ideas doesn't make you valuable. Having the time, expertise, and ability to think critically about strategic and financial considerations for a multi-million-dollar international organization that is independent from but supports a large, diverse, and fickle community, and doing so in a collaborative and constructive way with a dozen other such people, makes you valuable.

Being able to meet with such people face to face is part of "doing so in a collaborative and constructive way". If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then I'd argue that inherently makes you less valuable than someone who can.

I agree that this topic deserves attention, but I'd like to try to reframe it.

From the first point that the governance changes were shared with the community - which, in my view, was far too late in the process, at a time when effectively every major decision had long been made - we've heard consistent concerns from many articulate, thoughtful, and informed Drupal community members regarding this single criterion, the requirement for 4 in person meetings.

Unless I've missed something, there seems to be broad agreement that in-person meetings are valuable. That's not the question.

I've also heard broad and well supported concerns that the requirement for 4 in person meetings per year is the single issue that most restricts DA board membership to a narrow segment of the Drupal community, largely Drupal business owners or those whose employment will cover the time and expenses.

So far the voices I've heard sticking the hardest to the 4 meeting requirement seem to come exclusively from within the DA inner circle of permanent members, board members, advisory board members, and the ED, while concerns have been expressed largely from outside that inner circle. To a significant extent, how we handle this question is a test case of the new, open DA. Do we continue to say what's likely to come across as essentially, "we know best"? Or do we as the DA creatively find ways to draw in the insights of our community members, who clearly are motivated by concerns and aims that we share?

This question is also a test case for the new governance structure. Previously the Belgian based DA included a membership - however limited and flawed - that was ultimately responsible for governance questions. Now membership has been eliminated, and governance questions - like all other organizational decisions - rest with the board. Since the board is formed by definition of individuals who can meet the requirement for 4 in-person meetings, we have at least the potential for skewing board membership and organizational decisions in a self-perpetuating way--individuals and perspectives that might be excluded by the requirement are not at the decision making table to consider, among other things, changing the requirement.

To return to reframing the question. The yes/no version of the question seems to be: do the benefits of 4 in person meetings per year outweigh the costs of this requirement in restricting diversity and community representation in the board? Or, framed more constructively: how might we revise the meeting requirement such that it best meets the aims of the current requirement while minimizing restrictions on board membership?

In terms of how to answer that question, I'd say it's pretty easy. Strike a committee or working group including several of the people who have been active in discussing the question, both those raising concerns and those supporting the in person meetings. Task: review the issue, generate options, and bring recommendations to the governance committee and/or board.

I've heard a few times in comments on these two threads that we don't have a membership program, but we certainly do have one. I'm confused :/

My understanding is that our bylaws don't provide one, but operationally the staff (Jacob and team) created one. Is that the right understanding?

I have no allegiance or connection to the DA, other than running for (and later withdrawing from running for) a board position last year. I think that the requirement for in-person meetings is really essential to the success of the board. As someone living abroad, and who spent two years as a remote employee for Palantir, I can say without a doubt that in-person meetings are always more successful, more productive, and less prone to misunderstandings and miscommunications. They save time, energy and money in every way.

However I agree that the travel requirements threaten to reduce the diversity of the board in many ways both obvious and non-obvious. Many people have disabilities that make travel very difficult or even impossible. Instead of focusing on whether or not the in-person meetings are necessary, I would much rather focus on different ways we can make sure that the impact of the meetings is reduced as much as possible. The cost factor is one that has been brought up again and again. The board could also decide to rotate the meetings in such a way that everyone gets to have at least one meeting 'local' to them (aka on the same continent.) There are lots and lots of ways the impact of this requirement can be reduced, and I'd love to see more focus on out-of-the-box thinking on this rather than debating whether or not in-person meetings are more productive.

Finally, to somewhat contradict myself, I do think an opening should be left for the possibility that if a very very strong candidate is brought forward who is simply unable to travel (due to disability for instance), then this person can still participate in the board. We do want the best candidates possible right? I do believe very strongly that in-person meetings are necessary, but on the other hand the DA needs to make sure not to hew so closely to rules that they shoot themselves in the foot.

As I said in another thread, it seems to me a set of concrete steps that could be taken here that would balance the needs of the various perspectives, such as the need for in-person meetings vs. the necessity of travel.

1. Reduce the number or change attendance requirements of in-person meetings. 2 in-person meetings a year seems like a decent compromise, especially if the meetings are in-depth, well-facilitated, and well-attended.
2. Provide a robust, fair financial support model to compensate DA board members, based on need and location.
3. Publish explicitly stated expectations (in-person meetings, remote meeting attendance, on-going commitments) for board members as a form of transparency and to invite conversation about potential barriers to participation.

Don't call it compromise, call it a refactoring of board requirements. Something along these lines would allow the DA board to grow (and hopefully grow a more diverse) slowly and without fundamentally changing the spirit or practice of the DA. If you did it right, it might even mean a healthier, broader, more active Drupal Association.

When, as here, there's a notable difference in perspective between those inside and outside a group, it often reflects two factors:

1. Those inside the group have gone through a shared experience that has produced a common understanding.
2. Those outside the group have their own organizational experience to draw on but lack information that would enable them to gain insight into specific, experiential sources of group members' perspectives.

To try to address this, I've tried to include some information on communications and meetings in a draft backgrounder on the DA governance history: http://groups.drupal.org/node/199613. Then again, while I've been a permanent member of the DA, I've never served on the board and so have limited knowledge. Others, please add what I've missed!

My own perspective and musings are along these lines:

Prior to 2010, the DA included a lot of pretty dysfunctional organizational processes. Thanks to a sustained and positive focus on organizational development, a slew of improvements has been implemented, from structured meeting preparation and materials and functional committees to an executive director and staff to carry out DA objectives. In-person meetings were an important part of these changes.

This context may help contextualize a particularly strong attachment to in-person meetings by former and current DA board members. Any reduction in them could be perceived as a threat to some very hard won progress, or even a return to the "bad old days", including misunderstandings and interpersonal conflict that in-person contact has helped reduce.

But it may be challenging to truly sort out the specific impact and continued need for relatively frequent in-person meetings from the many other changes that separate the organization now from where it was in 2008 or 2009--unstaffed, conflictual, frustrating. To what extent would a reduced frequency of or participation requirement for in-person meetings really undermine the momentum or organizational progress? It might be hard to say, and so feel a lot safer to stick with what's working.