A lot of what I’d like to suggest has sort of been explained on here already.
Basically, it’s my opinion that we’re at a cross-roads here where a full do-ocracy does not suffice anymore.
To cater optimally to our membership, it’s detrimental to let the burdens of implementing stuff[TM] down to individual members, if even to prevent incoherence between the different initiative that are going on in the space.
Example: Is project X going to cause problems for improvement Y?
Replace X with the network and Y with the RFID setup and you know the reason why I’ve been advocating a infrastructure work group/committee.
The solution? As @garthomite already mentioned, we should not be afraid of work groups and committees!
Work groups and committees allow for focused groups that have enough “firepower” to actually get things done and in a structured way. In my vision, this would be a form of organized do-ocracy.
Having multiple WGs/CMs to run things not only increases turnover for projects, increases uptime for tools/machines, but also increases availability and redundancy of knowledge, as well as a way to ensure documentation and other social obligations to be committed.
Ultimately, I feel like we should have an OPS WG/CM that addresses on-going issues, versus differing those responsibilities to the directors. This OPS WG could also be made responsible for the much needed strategic level ponderings. (Runway, 1K and 2K visions in GTD terms.)
This way we would have an open organizational model, with accountability and continuity.
Like I said, much of this has already been said by @garthomite, but it felt worth saying.
My 2 cents.