I reiterate again:
1)Think about what we want to get out of this club and/or what we want this club to become (That's what a mission statement is. We certainly don't have a club mission statement at this point but everybody at least has their own ideas of what they want or don't want from the club).
2) What change needs to occur to make that happen - nothing? a club mission statement? bylaws? formalization?
Part of the trouble is there are 80 people with different ideas about what they want this club to be.
The other trouble is that within those 80 people there are extreme differences in the level of participation and stake they have in this club. What this club was at conception may be very different from what it's members are currently asking for. Does that mean that those people need to go elsewhere and start there own club or can the club simply evolve? OR does it not need to evolve and simply stay the way it is. A mission statement would answer that question.
Right now there is extreme disorganization regarding this topic because there is no one person or group of people taking the lead and saying this is what we should do. The poll is useless IMO because it's way to broad and tells nothing of what we're actually voting for. Do I think someone needs to step up and take the lead or be "president" - no. Do I think that some of the more core members should get together and come to an agreement about a simple mission statement (which can continually be changed and updated) - Yes. The next question is then "What constitutes a core member?" I think the number of posts within the club is certainly an important factor, but not the only factor. Some people post quite rarely yet contribute a lot to the group and I would consider them core members. I think each of us, in our own mind, know whether or not we're a core member. Ask yourself - Do you think you contribute enough to this club to say your a core member and a true asset in determining it's future? I don't think any newbies are going to step up and try to push their weight around - what benefit would they have in that. If there are some older members that don't participate much but feel they have a great deal of stock in this club then let them be heard and allow them to be considered a core member - there's nothing wrong with that. Where that concept can go wrong is if a newbie or original founder (whom no longer provides beneficial participation) wants something his or her way for their own benefit and doesn't have the best interest of the club in mind. I think we can all see those people a mile away and it would be no trouble to justify why someone is or isn't a core member. Please know that when I say a core member - I'm not just referring to the founders - there is a great deal of criteria to determine a core member but I don't think it will be a great deal of effort to sort the core members from others.
I think our next logical step is to come to a determination of current core members (whatever criteria that be), and those core members should then decide if there are any changes to be made or not. That core group of people can at least come up with a general mission statement. A mission statement will drive this group in whatever direction it needs to go from there.
Whatever happens, it needs to happen in baby steps and not an entire upheaval of our current structure. By nature, humans are turned off by and often afraid of change. However, sometimes change is inevitable and in the best interest for survival. Regardless, change at a slow pace is much more readily accepted than if something is simply turned upside down and inside out.
To take the lead on this conept, I'll start a poll asking if people of this club think we should go about determining the core members. If there is a resounding no I don't think we should pursue determining core members, or there is little response I'll take that as a statement that that's not a route to pursue to get to the bottom of all of our questions, concerns, and need for change or need for no change.
Jeremy