[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
jim
jim at well.com
Sat Feb 27 19:29:07 UTC 2010
+1
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 09:10 -0800, Ani Niow wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list