surely one of the upsides of having a larger membership is that the organisation would have more money. Isn't that good?
Money isn't everything. More members are also more admin. If the majority of new members are 'sleeping'/non-active, ie. just reading the newsletter, maybe turning up to the odd demo, then that would be a huge headache for a small core team to deal with.
Yes, a larger membership might bring in fresh blood, more folk to do admin, etc. Based on my experience of volunteer run groups though, this very rarely happens. It is usually the same people who have to do most of the work, unless they really pester others to do their share. Even when they do pester others, folk are often too busy or just content to let others do the hard work for them.
There are a whole load of other questions about transparency, renewal, etc, which SRD hints at. I'm not going to go there as I've no interest in challenging the current 'leadership' of Spokes, whether it is transparent, democratic, or otherwise.
Spokes has done and continues to do a brilliant job. Unless and until there is a need for the organisation to change (ie. a key person/people stands down/steps back) then I don't think much is achieved by questioning from the sidelines. If Spokes members want to influence policy, campaign priorities, etc. then they can sign up to one of the Working Groups and engage more with the organisation.
Personally, at present I'm happy to to remain a loyal Spokes 'foot soldier' and leave the prioritising of campaign focus to others. If I ever want to change that, I'll sign up for more work than currently and thus get more 'influence'...
posts
