The burden is on the Board, the Board-elect, the community leadership, and the membership at-large to seek out and encourage diversity on the Board. We have no policies in place to require, encourage, or enforce diversity, and that is a big issue... a shortcoming of the community and the leadership.
I won't be nominating anybody. Since the prominent membership of PS:1 has cornered me, across four years, into being openly angry and aggressive... since that was the only route they left for someone like me to "be heard at all"... it is to their convenience that any effort I make and any nomination I back would be doomed to failure; a classic construct of being "set up to fail."
But, with a white-majority, male-majority, middle- and upper-class majority membership, and with such people being virtually the only ones to have easy access to and use of the physical space of PS:1 during a pandemic, it falls on these same people to make an exceptional effort to encourage and support... substantially, as in "willing to help", to reach out and make an extra effort to provide access and connectivity... a Board candidate that represents anyone other than them. The rest of the membership... those not represented by the current Board and leadership, partially or in-full... deserve that effort.
We deserve to see representation on the Board of people other than the incredibly privileged, especially during a pandemic. This means... among other demographics... women, minorities, the poor, and people struggling to find better education... and, as an added note, not one of the leadership's currently-installed token members. Installing an obvious supertoken does not fulfill these ethical obligations.