[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[Ani Niow]

According to our bylaws (
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS), 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.

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.

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.

-Ani



On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Mikolaj Habryn <dichro at rcpt.to> wrote:

> Is there an official answer on that second point, being what is
> expected of an ED? A few people have mentioned this to me in passing,
> and I have no aversion to my name being put forward for the position,
> but I am somewhat curious as to what the ED should (or shouldn't?) do
> in future to avoid similar concerns arising next time.
>
> m.
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Jeffrey Malone
> <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com> wrote:
> > Okay, so we've all spent the last four days twiddling our thumbs after
> > a fun filled meeting.
> >
> > For those not at the meeting, here's a very brief review of what
> > happened, as there doesn't appear to be meeting notes posted anywhere:
> >
> >  - Mitch was blocked from becoming ED.
> >  - Drama ensued as people argued about what the ED was, either
> > according to the bylaws, or how they viewed the role, which sometimes
> > differed.
> >
> > We then all agreed on this plan:
> >
> > That we would present a new candidate for ED on Tuesday, March 2.
> > That this would be a candidate who we all would approve on March 9, so
> > as to get this whole ordeal over with ASAP.
> > The idea was that we'd talk about candidates, and make sure that by
> > Tuesday, we'd have someone picked out who was willing, and none of us
> > hated.
> >
> > So four days later, and not a word from anyone.  We're failing at this.
> >
> >
> > I also have a question that someone out there may know.
> > As is my understanding, being an officer of a corporation in
> > California is akin to being employed by that organisation (whether you
> > receive compensation or not).  Thus, there may be a requirement that
> > the ED be able to legally work in California.  Is this a valid
> > understanding?
> > If so, any candidate we submit must be able to legally work here.
> >
> >
> > So I encourage all of you to think of someone that you think would do
> > alright as ED, and talk to them.  Ask them to step forward and be a
> > candidate.  Please do it quickly!
> >
> > Also, I'd like to remind people, that no person will be everyone's
> > favourite choice for the job.  Consensus is not about approving, but
> > specifically not disapproving.
> > In the interest of productivity, and unity, I would personally
> > encourage anyone who takes issue with any candidate to do the
> > following:
> >  - Talk to the person about your concerns.  See if they can be worked
> > out.  Ask others to help if you'd like.
> >  - Think to yourself whether you would be OK with them being ED, even
> > if you generally wouldn't want them to be.  If so, let your concerns
> > be known, but realise that if you are a minority voice, it may be wise
> > to yield to the will of the group.
> >  - If you have irreconcilable differences with a candidate becoming
> > ED, SPEAK UP.  QUICKLY.  Try talking to them, but please do not wait
> > until Tuesday to say so.
> >
> > Jeffrey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100227/8738c507/attachment-0003.html>