Dude, I'm not giving an "I think this is how it ought to be" here, I'm just saying that this is how it's been done.� I have been finding that lots of people don't know that this is how it's been done, which is why I posted that explanation.� Please don't mistake my explanation for endorsement.<br>
<br>What I'm saying is, everybody I've talked to has a (different) idea of how this process is supposed to work, and none of them match my experience of how it has actually worked -- and if we want a different system, we need to sit down and hash it out, and *not* just fall back on "but this is the way it works" -- because nobody currently agrees on "how it works."<br>
<br>I also think that "changing the way it's done" in the middle of doing it is a mistake.� My preference would have been to get our final outstanding officer slot filled and *then* have a series of meetings where we come up with an official process, but maybe Christie is right and we should do that first.� We certainly shouldn't do them concurrently.<br>
<br>--S<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jeffrey Malone <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ieatlint@tehinterweb.com">ieatlint@tehinterweb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The board members discussed it. �Noisebridge members discussed it.<br>
<br>
The board had no added authority over any member on the issue, and I feel that you're implying otherwise. �That the board picks someone, and asks the membership for approval.<br>
We explicitly work by policy that the board carries out the will of the membership. �Having them pick an officer gives them the authority to choose who is even an eligible candidate.<br>
<br>
If you want a structure like that, form an ED selection committee that any member can be part of. �They can work out a candidate and propose it to the rest of the members.<br>
<br>
There is no need to assign more duties/authority to the board, especially when it comes to selecting officers.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Jeffrey<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
----- Original message -----<br>
> Jefferey,<br>
><br>
> Before the "the board selects someone" phase, there was a "does anybody want<br>
> to be treasurer?" phase -- and of course, your having volunteered means that<br>
> nobody had to ask you :)� I assure you that the board discussed it.<br>
><br>
> --S<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jeffrey Malone <<a href="mailto:ieatlint@tehinterweb.com">ieatlint@tehinterweb.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
> > I'd just like to point out that the process Shannon describes in no way<br>
> > reflects the process that led to me becoming an officer.<br>
> ><br>
> > I was never approached by the board, but rather volunteered.� I then very<br>
> > breifly spoke to Mitch about it.� At no time did the board speak to me, or<br>
> > discuss me in any capacity that has been revealed to me.<br>
> ><br>
> > The board also rubber stamped me well after consensus was reached, not<br>
> > before.<br>
> ><br>
> > I also personally would object to increasing the duty of the board to pick<br>
> > our officers and ask the membership for consensus.<br>
> > Our board is here to serve us, not try to get approval from us to do<br>
> > things.� That's not rubber stamping the will of the members.<br>
> ><br>
> > Jeffrey<br>
> ><br>
> > ----- Original message -----<br>
> > > For the record, here's my understanding of how the process works.� My<br>
> > > descriptive paragraphs below should not be taken as endorsing or<br>
> > dictating<br>
> > > this process, but merely putting out what I've observed and participated<br>
> > > in.� If I'm wrong about how it's supposed to go or how it actually works,<br>
> > by<br>
> > > all mean speak up.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > The Bylaws (<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS</a>)<br>
> > have<br>
> > > this to say about the process:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > *Section 2. Election.* The officers of this corporation shall be elected<br>
> > > annually by the Board of Directors, and each shall serve at the pleasure<br>
> > of<br>
> > > the Board, subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any<br>
> > contract<br>
> > > of employment.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Because Noisebridge normally decides things by consensus, and because<br>
> > mostly<br>
> > > Officer positions involve a bunch of thankless work, in practice the way<br>
> > > this has happened in the past is that the Board looks around and finds<br>
> > > someone who might be willing and able to do whichever job needs to be<br>
> > > filled, and then appoints a board member to go convince that person to do<br>
> > > that job.� If they agree to do it (this is actually generally the hardest<br>
> > > part of the process), that person's selection to that post then goes up<br>
> > for<br>
> > > consensus at the Tuesday night meeting, and like everything else goes<br>
> > > through the discuss one week, consense the next process.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > This is the first time we've not gotten consensus on an officer's<br>
> > > nomination, so we're now sort of floundering as to what to do next;<br>
> > there's<br>
> > > lots of talk about who'd be good, there's a list of nominees... but I am<br>
> > not<br>
> > > sure we know what our process should look like.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > My reading (and this is purely "the way it looks to me," not like expert<br>
> > > opinion or anything) is that since the membership has not consensed on<br>
> > our<br>
> > > candidate, then the Board has to elect someone else, whom the membership<br>
> > > will then attempt to consense on.� Since the consensus phase is an<br>
> > artifact<br>
> > > of our *practice* of consensus rather than of our Bylaws (which say<br>
> > > precisely jack about consensus), we can certainly consense on someone,<br>
> > and<br>
> > > then the Board could elect them (and given that the Board are all<br>
> > members,<br>
> > > it would be weird if they consensed and *then* failed to elect the<br>
> > person).<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Anybody have a different, better or more well-articualted idea of what<br>
> > the<br>
> > > process going forward should look like?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > --S<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ever Falling <<a href="mailto:everfalling@gmail.com">everfalling@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > i think the reason no one is really talking about anyone but Mitch is<br>
> > > > because no one else voluntarily threw their hat into this. if they did<br>
> > they<br>
> > > > did so upon personal request or upon seeing that there was a request<br>
> > for<br>
> > > > greater variety. so far, as much as i can tell, most of the other<br>
> > candidates<br>
> > > > seem to have the attitude of 'sure i'll do it' instead of 'i want to do<br>
> > it'.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > if it weren't for the fact that you insist that we have more than just<br>
> > one<br>
> > > > person to choose from, even though originally no one else was being<br>
> > > > nominated or individually putting their hat in, we'd have been over and<br>
> > done<br>
> > > > with the whole 'mitch isn't around enough' issue and have moved<br>
> > forward. It<br>
> > > > just seems like you compounded what was, at least for everyone else, a<br>
> > > > pretty straight forward decision and that even after your minor<br>
> > concerns<br>
> > > > have been met multiple times to a reasonable extent you still insist<br>
> > it's<br>
> > > > not enough.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > i agree that mulling this over on the list is counter to what we all<br>
> > agreed<br>
> > > > on last week and that the two week plan of nomination and then<br>
> > consensus<br>
> > > > vote should be carried out.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > how about this. if you wish for more discussion bout the other<br>
> > candidates<br>
> > > > please initiate it. what do you think makes the others a better choice?<br>
> > do<br>
> > > > you even think they're better choices? give us a launching point of<br>
> > > > discussion instead of complaining no one else is considering everyone<br>
> > else<br>
> > > > would rather be done with this a week ago.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > also try not to read these replies with a mental tone of hostility<br>
> > because<br>
> > > > that isn't at all the indention.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Christie Dudley <<a href="mailto:longobord@gmail.com">longobord@gmail.com</a><br>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > > What about the other candidates?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Who has thoughts on Mikolaj?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Who has thoughts on Lief?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Why aren't we talking about anyone but Mitch?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Christie<br>
> > > > > _______<br>
> > > > > "We also briefly discussed having officers replaced by very small<br>
> > shell<br>
> > > > > scripts." -- Noisebridge meeting notes 2008-06-17<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > The outer bounds is only the beginning.<br>
> > > > > <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/</a><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Rachel McConnell <<a href="mailto:rachel@xtreme.com">rachel@xtreme.com</a><br>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Christie, here are some thoughts I had regarding your position on<br>
> > Mitch<br>
> > > > > > as ED.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > I understand why you would object to an 'absentee' ED.� I posit to<br>
> > you<br>
> > > > > > that there are significant benefits as well.� Noisebridge has an<br>
> > > > > > extraordinarily rich interaction with other hackerspaces (and<br>
> > generally<br>
> > > > > > cool people) *worldwide*, due primarily to our roving ambassadors,<br>
> > Jake<br>
> > > > > > and Mitch.� We've got relationships with hackers not only in<br>
> > Chicago,<br>
> > > > > > Toronto, Atlanta, etc in North America, but also in Germany and<br>
> > Japan,<br>
> > > > > > and probably others I'm not yet aware of.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Have you asked Mitch if his schedule will continue to be that he's<br>
> > gone<br>
> > > > > > a great deal of the time?� It may be that he'll be around more in<br>
> > 2010,<br>
> > > > > > which would allow him to keep more abreast of the activities of the<br>
> > > > > > organization.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > To address your issue further: regarding keeping abreast of the<br>
> > ongoing<br>
> > > > > > needs of the organization, we've been pretty clear that this is not<br>
> > > > > > actually the business of the ED, but of the members.� The ED is<br>
> > *not*<br>
> > > > > > our leader.� I believe you might respond to this that the ED is<br>
> > > > > > perceived as such by outsiders, and I would respond to that with,<br>
> > how<br>
> > > > > > does that cause a problem for us?<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Rachel<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Christie Dudley wrote:<br>
> > > > > > > My issues with Mitch are fairly minor.� I think he's a great<br>
> > person,<br>
> > > > > > but<br>
> > > > > > > he's not terribly involved in the immediate Noisebridge<br>
> > community.<br>
> > > > > >� He's<br>
> > > > > > > just not around much and doesn't keep abreast of the breadth of<br>
> > totally<br>
> > > > > > > excellent things going on at Noisebridge, or the ongoing needs of<br>
> > the<br>
> > > > > > > organization.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > In addition to the 'representational' part that Vlad brought up<br>
> > (can he<br>
> > > > > > > represent us well if he doesn't know us well?) It is the ED's job<br>
> > to<br>
> > > > > > > call the board meetings, set the agenda and preside.� I think<br>
> > Rachel<br>
> > > > > > has<br>
> > > > > > > been doing a fine job of this so far, but it's not her job.<br>
> > (Legally,<br>
> > > > > > > according to the bylaws)� I'd really like to see an ED who can do<br>
> > the<br>
> > > > > > > job, who understands when board meetings are needed and will make<br>
> > that<br>
> > > > > > > happen.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > I think Mitch could do a fair job of muddling through if there<br>
> > were no<br>
> > > > > > > other candidates.� But there are other candidates who are much<br>
> > more<br>
> > > > > > > capable of doing a good job with what little is required of<br>
> > them.� It<br>
> > > > > > > appalls me that we have to have the choice of the board as our<br>
> > only<br>
> > > > > > > option, especially when it's not the best one.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > I don't understand why this discussion keeps coming back to<br>
> > Mitch/Not<br>
> > > > > > > Mitch.� I thought it was the will of the members to decide who.<br>
> > Why<br>
> > > > > > are<br>
> > > > > > > we not comparing Mitch/Mikolaj/whoever?� This false dichotomy is<br>
> > > > > > killing<br>
> > > > > > > serious consideration of the candidates.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > We already decided at the meeting this coming week that we would<br>
> > *not*<br>
> > > > > > > try to form a consensus on the candidates for ED, but rather<br>
> > narrow it<br>
> > > > > > > down to one to consense on next week.� WHY do we keep coming back<br>
> > to<br>
> > > > > > > this whole false dichotomy?<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > Christie<br>
> > > > > > > _______<br>
> > > > > > > "We also briefly discussed having officers replaced by very small<br>
> > shell<br>
> > > > > > > scripts." -- Noisebridge meeting notes 2008-06-17<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > The outer bounds is only the beginning.<br>
> > > > > > > <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/</a><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ani Niow <<br>
> > <a href="mailto:v@oneletterwonder.com">v@oneletterwonder.com</a><br>
> > > > > > > <mailto:<a href="mailto:v@oneletterwonder.com">v@oneletterwonder.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � I would like to formally re-nominate Mitch for the<br>
> > position of the<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � Executive Director of Noisebridge.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � -Ani<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Malone<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � <<a href="mailto:ieatlint@tehinterweb.com">ieatlint@tehinterweb.com</a> <mailto:<br>
> > <a href="mailto:ieatlint@tehinterweb.com">ieatlint@tehinterweb.com</a>>><br>
> > > > > > wrote:<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Sai Emrys<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � <<a href="mailto:noisebridge@saizai.com">noisebridge@saizai.com</a> <mailto:<br>
> > <a href="mailto:noisebridge@saizai.com">noisebridge@saizai.com</a>>><br>
> > > > > > wrote:<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Andy Isaacson<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � <<a href="mailto:adi@hexapodia.org">adi@hexapodia.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:adi@hexapodia.org">adi@hexapodia.org</a>>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � >> We currently have all of these things.� AFAIK,<br>
> > until the<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � board appoints<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � >> a new ED, Jake continues in his appointment<br>
> > from last year.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > That's my reading as well. Officers serve until<br>
> > replaced;<br>
> > > > > > Board<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � > members have terms of office.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Actually, you have that kind of backwards.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Both have terms -- 1 year.� Board members remain<br>
> > in office<br>
> > > > > > until<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � they<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � are replaced.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � There is no such clause for officers.� Our bylaws<br>
> > state that<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � they must<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � be appointed annually, and as the year ran up at<br>
> > the beginning<br>
> > > > > > of<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � October, so did the term for all three officer<br>
> > positions.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Noisebridge has been without an ED since October.<br>
> > This has<br>
> > > > > > been<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � stated at a board meeting and a general meeting.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � In fact, two board members even tried to simply<br>
> > appoint an ED<br>
> > > > > > at the<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � last board meeting to "fix" this.� They even<br>
> > planned to do so<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � without<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � consulting the members before conceding to<br>
> > objections that<br>
> > > > > > while the<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � legal authority exists for them to do that, it<br>
> > runs completely<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � against<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Noisebridge policy.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � In general, I would like to thank all of you for<br>
> > turning this<br>
> > > > > > into a<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � discussion about what people feel the ED is, and<br>
> > absolutely<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � nothing to<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � do with actually selecting a new one.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � You might argue that you feel defining the role is<br>
> > the same<br>
> > > > > > thing.<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � It's not -- who it is, and what they will be doing<br>
> > are two<br>
> > > > > > different<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � controversial subjects.� Intertwining them has, as<br>
> > best I can<br>
> > > > > > tell,<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � resulted in absolutely no progress on either side.<br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � So any chance this can get back on topic to its<br>
> > original intent<br>
> > > > > > of<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � nominating people for the ED?� Or should I simply<br>
> > give up?<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>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � <mailto:<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > > > > > ><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>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> > > > > > >� � � � � � � <mailto:<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>><br>
> > > > > > ><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>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > ><br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<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>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > ><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>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > --<br>
> > > > Trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and perpetuates its<br>
> > > > existence.<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>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > --<br>
> > > Shannon Lee<br>
> > > (503) 539-3700<br>
> > ><br>
> > > "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Shannon Lee<br>
> (503) 539-3700<br>
><br>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Shannon Lee<br>(503) 539-3700<br><br>"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."<br>