[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

Sun Feb 28 07:59:16 UTC 2010

i think there's a point in which a consensus process is hindered by the
number of people participating in it. consensus is good for a small number
of people (like 10-15) or a few groups of like-minded individuals concerning
the issue at hand who as a group can cast a single vote into consensus.
unfortunately as it grows it becomes easier for a minority with sometimes
little to no reasonable reasons to block and subvert the entire process.
sometimes a plan of action that everyone eventually agrees on because the
previous plan was opposed by a few isn't necessarily the best plan of action
that would benefit everyone as whole.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Tomm <tomm.fire at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 2/27/2010 1:05 PM, Zedd Epstein wrote:
>
> There was only one person that blocked. She is not willing to change her
> position for the good of the organization as a whole, and our version of
> consensus doesn't allow us to just run her over. Therefore the only recourse
> we have is to find someone else that we can all agree on.
>
>
> I don't think that requiring unanimous consent is a good thing for
> Noisebridge.  Not that I know what Noisebridge is, really, or even know the
> people involved, but I do know that if there are more than a handful of
> people, unanimous consent doesn't have a good track record in functional
> organizations.
>
> "Many historians hold that a major cause of the Commonwealth's downfall was
> the principle of *liberum veto"*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
>
> But no need to look that far back for examples: just look at Jim Bunning's
> recent "accomplishment" in the US Senate.  For more problems, look here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms
>
> I support the tyranny of the majority for most decisions, and 2/3 vote for
> important decisions (like ED votes).  It works, and I believe it's what
> almost all organizations use [citation needed].
>
>     Tom
>
>
>  On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com>wrote:
>
>> Was acceptance of attendance by remote means brought up in the
>> meeting?  If so, it seems that should have ended the objection to
>> Mitch as Executive Director.  At that point, why was the block
>> retained by whoever blocked?
>>
>> It would be great if someone who actually blocked Mitch could speak up
>> on this list.
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>>
>> >> From my recollection, there have been only two board meetings in the
>> > past 12 months.  Maybe three.
>> > One week's notice is required to hold one, and I believe that is the
>> > standard advanced warning.
>> >
>> > Attendance is perfectly acceptable via phone, or other electronic
>> > means (as explicitly stated in our bylaws).
>> >
>> > Jeffrey
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:40 AM, dmolnar <dmolnar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> How many BOD meetings do we have?
>> >> Are they frequent enough that it would be difficult to schedule
>> >> attending in
>> >> advance?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________
>> >> From: Ever Falling <everfalling at gmail.com>
>> >> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:33 AM
>> >> To: Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com>
>> >> Cc: Noisebridge Discussion List <
>> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >> >
>> >> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
>> >>
>> >> IIRC there was only one point made for why Mitch wouldn't be the /
>> >> best/
>> >> choice (not that he wouldn't, for this one point, otherwise be a
>> >> good ED)
>> >> for ED and that's the fact that he travels a lot and wouldn't be
>> >> able to
>> >> attend the required BOD meetings all the time. Christie, who made
>> >> the point,
>> >> suggested Micholi (sp?) as he's at the space more often.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Vlad Spears
>> >> <spears at 2secondfuse.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 27, 2010, at 9:10 AM, 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> So is this why Mitch was blocked as Executive Director?  These are
>> >>> two
>> >>> different issues.
>> >>> Issue 1) We need an Executive Director now.
>> >>> Issue 2) Later, after much discussion, let's affirm or redefine
>> >>> exactly
>> >>> what the Executive Director's role is.  If the person currently in
>> >>> the role
>> >>> at a point of redefinition cannot fulfill it, they can step down
>> >>> and a new
>> >>> Executive Director can be sought.
>> >>> I'd like to point out while we are all advocates and
>> >>> representatives of
>> >>> Noisebridge in the wider world, it would be poor planning not to
>> >>> account for
>> >>> the fact our internal valuations do not match the wider world's
>> >>> perceptions.
>> >>>  Noisebridge members generally know that "Executive Director" does
>> >>> not mean
>> >>> "in charge" and is not a position of power.  The outside world
>> >>> does not know
>> >>> this, and assumes the inverse.  It seems particularly important,
>> >>> then, to
>> >>> have an Executive Director who is not just generally awesome as a
>> >>> Noisebridge contributor, but can explain this to the outside world
>> >>> while not
>> >>> being prone to self-aggrandizement or assumption of power they do
>> >>> not
>> >>> actually wield.  This fits Mitch like a glove.
>> >>> Again, who blocked Mitch and why?
>> >>> Vlad
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and perpetuates
>> >> its
>> >> existence.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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 listNoisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.nethttps://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
>
>

-- 
Trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and perpetuates its
existence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100227/16f9fc18/attachment-0003.html>