Jefferey,<br><br>Before the "the board selects someone" phase, there was a "does anybody want to be treasurer?" phase -- and of course, your having volunteered means that nobody had to ask you :) I assure you that the board discussed it.<br>
<br>--S<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:49 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;">
I'd just like to point out that the process Shannon describes in no way 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 breifly spoke to Mitch about it. At no time did the board speak to me, or 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 before.<br>
<br>
I also personally would object to increasing the duty of the board to pick 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 things. That's not rubber stamping the will of the members.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Jeffrey<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><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 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, 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>) 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 of<br>
> the Board, subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any contract<br>
> of employment.<br>
><br>
> Because Noisebridge normally decides things by consensus, and because 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 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; there's<br>
> lots of talk about who'd be good, there's a list of nominees... but I am 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 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 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, and<br>
> then the Board could elect them (and given that the Board are all members,<br>
> it would be weird if they consensed and *then* failed to elect the person).<br>
><br>
> Anybody have a different, better or more well-articualted idea of what 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>> 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 they<br>
> > did so upon personal request or upon seeing that there was a request for<br>
> > greater variety. so far, as much as i can tell, most of the other candidates<br>
> > seem to have the attitude of 'sure i'll do it' instead of 'i want to do it'.<br>
> ><br>
> > if it weren't for the fact that you insist that we have more than just 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 done<br>
> > with the whole 'mitch isn't around enough' issue and have moved 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 concerns<br>
> > have been met multiple times to a reasonable extent you still insist it's<br>
> > not enough.<br>
> ><br>
> > i agree that mulling this over on the list is counter to what we all agreed<br>
> > on last week and that the two week plan of nomination and then consensus<br>
> > vote should be carried out.<br>
> ><br>
> > how about this. if you wish for more discussion bout the other candidates<br>
> > please initiate it. what do you think makes the others a better choice? 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 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 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>>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 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>>wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > Christie, here are some thoughts I had regarding your position on Mitch<br>
> > > > as ED.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > I understand why you would object to an 'absentee' ED. I posit to you<br>
> > > > that there are significant benefits as well. Noisebridge has an<br>
> > > > extraordinarily rich interaction with other hackerspaces (and generally<br>
> > > > cool people) *worldwide*, due primarily to our roving ambassadors, Jake<br>
> > > > and Mitch. We've got relationships with hackers not only in Chicago,<br>
> > > > Toronto, Atlanta, etc in North America, but also in Germany and 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 gone<br>
> > > > a great deal of the time? It may be that he'll be around more in 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 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 *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, 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 person,<br>
> > > > but<br>
> > > > > he's not terribly involved in the immediate Noisebridge community.<br>
> > > > He's<br>
> > > > > just not around much and doesn't keep abreast of the breadth of totally<br>
> > > > > excellent things going on at Noisebridge, or the ongoing needs of the<br>
> > > > > organization.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > In addition to the 'representational' part that Vlad brought up (can he<br>
> > > > > represent us well if he doesn't know us well?) It is the ED's job to<br>
> > > > > call the board meetings, set the agenda and preside. I think Rachel<br>
> > > > has<br>
> > > > > been doing a fine job of this so far, but it's not her job. (Legally,<br>
> > > > > according to the bylaws) I'd really like to see an ED who can do the<br>
> > > > > job, who understands when board meetings are needed and will make that<br>
> > > > > happen.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > I think Mitch could do a fair job of muddling through if there were no<br>
> > > > > other candidates. But there are other candidates who are much more<br>
> > > > > capable of doing a good job with what little is required of them. It<br>
> > > > > appalls me that we have to have the choice of the board as our only<br>
> > > > > option, especially when it's not the best one.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > I don't understand why this discussion keeps coming back to Mitch/Not<br>
> > > > > Mitch. I thought it was the will of the members to decide who. 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 *not*<br>
> > > > > try to form a consensus on the candidates for ED, but rather narrow it<br>
> > > > > down to one to consense on next week. WHY do we keep coming back to<br>
> > > > > this whole false dichotomy?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Christie<br>
> > > > > _______<br>
> > > > > "We also briefly discussed having officers replaced by very small 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 <<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 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:<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:<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>>> wrote:<br>
> > > > > >> We currently have all of these things. AFAIK, until the<br>
> > > > > board appoints<br>
> > > > > >> a new ED, Jake continues in his appointment from last year.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > That's my reading as well. Officers serve until 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 in office<br>
> > > > until<br>
> > > > > they<br>
> > > > > are replaced.<br>
> > > > > There is no such clause for officers. Our bylaws state that<br>
> > > > > they must<br>
> > > > > be appointed annually, and as the year ran up at the beginning<br>
> > > > of<br>
> > > > > October, so did the term for all three officer positions.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Noisebridge has been without an ED since October. This has<br>
> > > > been<br>
> > > > > stated at a board meeting and a general meeting.<br>
> > > > > In fact, two board members even tried to simply appoint an ED<br>
> > > > at the<br>
> > > > > last board meeting to "fix" this. They even planned to do so<br>
> > > > > without<br>
> > > > > consulting the members before conceding to objections that<br>
> > > > while the<br>
> > > > > legal authority exists for them to do that, it runs completely<br>
> > > > > against<br>
> > > > > Noisebridge policy.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > In general, I would like to thank all of you for turning this<br>
> > > > into a<br>
> > > > > discussion about what people feel the ED is, and absolutely<br>
> > > > > nothing to<br>
> > > > > do with actually selecting a new one.<br>
> > > > > You might argue that you feel defining the role is the same<br>
> > > > thing.<br>
> > > > > It's not -- who it is, and what they will be doing are two<br>
> > > > different<br>
> > > > > controversial subjects. Intertwining them has, as 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 original intent<br>
> > > > of<br>
> > > > > nominating people for the ED? Or should I simply 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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > > <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>
> > > > > 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>
</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>