Organization Governance Structure

As I mentioned on our Wiki, we are currently unincorporated as we are looking into various options on what type of organization to create, where to incorporate, how to design the governance structure, etc. The last part (governance structure) is the most important, and that’s in particular what I want to talk about in this thread.

Note that there’s the Infinite Love non-profit organization and then there’s the Community government — these are two separate things. In this thread I’m talking about the organization, not the community, which will likely have it’s own governance (though, some aspects of the governance structure may very well be similar).

Though the Infinite Love organization once officially incorporated will require by law certain roles to be formally established (i.e. “board members”, such as a “President” and various other “Officer” positions), our intent is to operate less as a hierarchy led by a single individual at the top and more as a council led by groups of people. In terms of the important decisions that need to be made in an organization, rather than the classic “inverted tree” shape where the higher up you go in an organization the fewer the roles and more concentrated the power, instead I think as one goes up the organizational ladder we should have more positions with each person having relatively less power. In other words, the more important the decision, the more people that should have to be involved to make it, with the difference between people at the top and bottom determined by merit (expertise) rather than those who just so happened to be around when the organization was first formed and were lucky enough to secure a management role. This approaches seems the most logical to me (though I can understand why for-profit companies still do the old-fashioned way, as the appeal of more power and the scarcity of the position attracts people and feeds the endless cycle of employees grinding up the corporate ladder, plus it’s cheaper for a company to pay one Director-level employee rather than several). If there is a concern that more people involved in decision-making means potentially more inaction, then we need to simply design the decision-making process such that decisions cannot be stalled. For example, if a group of people in a given department are to make a decision, presumably there will be a vote one way or another and anyone not available would forfeit their vote, with ties broken perhaps by a previously designated member for that purpose.

As for how something like this is formally incorporated into the organizational charter, we’ll probably need a legal technical writer for that, but at least for now this what I’m thinking. If you have any thoughts on this I’m all ears. :slightly_smiling_face: