Our meetings are frequently long, disorganized, and acrimonious. We have no meaningful systems of accountability. We experience the same challenges with effectively organizing ourselves and finding consensus again and again and again. And I think in this context, we should go back to basics.

Most organizations use variations on the same structures: a few people are selected by the collective to assume the primary responsibility for key functions like running meetings, maintaining infrastructure, providing a key contact for member concerns and arbitrating disputes and allegations of violations of a code of conduct. I think it's somewhat quixotic that we as a group persist in using unconventional tools that have consistently failed us (catastrophically, imo) in our attempts to execute Sudo Room's statement of purpose.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not proposing that we discard our ideals of horizontal power distribution. I think the elephant in the room is that we don't have a horizontal power structure. A few people hold the power to assert their will unilaterally, and most people only have enough power to derail a meeting, but not enough to bring it back on track. Perhaps if we rebuild trust and teach more people how to make themselves heard, a board will become unnecessary and we can effectively execute the vision that we're unsuccessfully trying to execute now. But I think it is long, long past time to actually make substantive changes to how we operate, and agreeing to have a consistent meeting chair and a membership coordinator, etc. selected by the collective sounds to me like simple common sense.