According to our bylaws (<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS</a>), the ED's only responsibilities to preside over all board meetings and submit a financial report 120 days after the end of the fiscal year. Occasionally as an officer the ED may be asked to help or sign paperwork such as getting a seller's permit (which we've been trying to get for months but given the unclear status of if we have actually *had* an ED since October it has not happened yet). Other than that it's generally being an otherwise awesome contributor to Noisebridge.<div>
<br></div><div>What the arguing is about is that some people feel that the ED should have more responsibility, such as being an advocate for Noisebridge in their travels and being a representative of sorts. I disagree with this view given we are a collective without anyone being in a hierarchy, we should all be doing this job as members and contributors. </div>
<div><br></div><div>As a board member the only power I have is doing the will of the membership when there's something you need a board member to do, such as some paperwork and whatnot. The only reason why we even have a board and officers is because to be a 501(c)3 you need these. Otherwise given the non-hierarchical setup of our organisation everyone has equal input on what can be done with Noisebridge though members do have consensus ability. I think asking more responsibility for an ED than what's legally required is anthethical to our collective setup and am a bit disappointed in some members that want to focus on creating more unnecessary hierarchy. If you want an advocate you should go and be one. Remember that this is a do-ocracy after all.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Ani</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mikolaj Habryn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dichro@rcpt.to">dichro@rcpt.to</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Is there an official answer on that second point, being what is<br>
expected of an ED? A few people have mentioned this to me in passing,<br>
and I have no aversion to my name being put forward for the position,<br>
but I am somewhat curious as to what the ED should (or shouldn't?) do<br>
in future to avoid similar concerns arising next time.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
m.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Jeffrey Malone<br>
<<a href="mailto:ieatlint@tehinterweb.com">ieatlint@tehinterweb.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Okay, so we've all spent the last four days twiddling our thumbs after<br>
> a fun filled meeting.<br>
><br>
> For those not at the meeting, here's a very brief review of what<br>
> happened, as there doesn't appear to be meeting notes posted anywhere:<br>
><br>
> - Mitch was blocked from becoming ED.<br>
> - Drama ensued as people argued about what the ED was, either<br>
> according to the bylaws, or how they viewed the role, which sometimes<br>
> differed.<br>
><br>
> We then all agreed on this plan:<br>
><br>
> That we would present a new candidate for ED on Tuesday, March 2.<br>
> That this would be a candidate who we all would approve on March 9, so<br>
> as to get this whole ordeal over with ASAP.<br>
> The idea was that we'd talk about candidates, and make sure that by<br>
> Tuesday, we'd have someone picked out who was willing, and none of us<br>
> hated.<br>
><br>
> So four days later, and not a word from anyone. We're failing at this.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I also have a question that someone out there may know.<br>
> As is my understanding, being an officer of a corporation in<br>
> California is akin to being employed by that organisation (whether you<br>
> receive compensation or not). Thus, there may be a requirement that<br>
> the ED be able to legally work in California. Is this a valid<br>
> understanding?<br>
> If so, any candidate we submit must be able to legally work here.<br>
><br>
><br>
> So I encourage all of you to think of someone that you think would do<br>
> alright as ED, and talk to them. Ask them to step forward and be a<br>
> candidate. Please do it quickly!<br>
><br>
> Also, I'd like to remind people, that no person will be everyone's<br>
> favourite choice for the job. Consensus is not about approving, but<br>
> specifically not disapproving.<br>
> In the interest of productivity, and unity, I would personally<br>
> encourage anyone who takes issue with any candidate to do the<br>
> following:<br>
> - Talk to the person about your concerns. See if they can be worked<br>
> out. Ask others to help if you'd like.<br>
> - Think to yourself whether you would be OK with them being ED, even<br>
> if you generally wouldn't want them to be. If so, let your concerns<br>
> be known, but realise that if you are a minority voice, it may be wise<br>
> to yield to the will of the group.<br>
> - If you have irreconcilable differences with a candidate becoming<br>
> ED, SPEAK UP. QUICKLY. Try talking to them, but please do not wait<br>
> until Tuesday to say so.<br>
><br>
> Jeffrey<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>