[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Vlad Spears
spears at 2secondfuse.com
Mon Mar 1 05:45:05 UTC 2010
I like the full process for every candidate:
1) Board approaches someone and gets their agreement to do the job
2) membership consenses on the candidate
3) the Board elects the candidate to the open Officer position.
I think a benefit of this approach is that for practical reasons the
Board knows better than much of the membership what the
responsibilities of an Officer's position are, and can make informed
choices on possible candidate fit rather than individuals who want the
position for their own reasons attempting to "run for office."
If the membership doesn't go with it, the process starts over until
the Board gets someone membership can consense on. This keeps the
Board and Officers from becoming the Old Hackers Network, and balances
the fitness of the candidate for the actual role with the membership's
perception of that candidate.
Going through the process one candidate at a time is true to our
current set of bylaws and doesn't subvert proceedings to something
akin to a multi-party election. Problems with blocking for unclear
reasons aside, this is exactly what we have just gone through with
Mitch, and it seems to be working fine. Membership could not consense
and now we need to go back to step one with a new candidate.
It's a bummer Christie feels strongly enough to block Mitch, whatever
her actual reasons, but in the long rung it's probably not that big a
deal and may even be teaching us something about what it really takes
to live in a healthy consensus system.
Vlad
On Feb 28, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Shannon Lee wrote:
> For the record, here's my understanding of how the process works.
> My descriptive paragraphs below should not be taken as endorsing or
> dictating this process, but merely putting out what I've observed
> and participated in. If I'm wrong about how it's supposed to go or
> how it actually works, by all mean speak up.
>
> The Bylaws (https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS)
> have this to say about the process:
>
> Section 2. Election. The officers of this corporation shall be
> elected annually by the Board of Directors, and each shall serve at
> the pleasure of the Board, subject to the rights, if any, of an
> officer under any contract of employment.
>
> Because Noisebridge normally decides things by consensus, and
> because mostly Officer positions involve a bunch of thankless work,
> in practice the way this has happened in the past is that the Board
> looks around and finds someone who might be willing and able to do
> whichever job needs to be filled, and then appoints a board member
> to go convince that person to do that job. If they agree to do it
> (this is actually generally the hardest part of the process), that
> person's selection to that post then goes up for consensus at the
> Tuesday night meeting, and like everything else goes through the
> discuss one week, consense the next process.
>
> This is the first time we've not gotten consensus on an officer's
> nomination, so we're now sort of floundering as to what to do next;
> there's lots of talk about who'd be good, there's a list of
> nominees... but I am not sure we know what our process should look
> like.
>
> My reading (and this is purely "the way it looks to me," not like
> expert opinion or anything) is that since the membership has not
> consensed on our candidate, then the Board has to elect someone
> else, whom the membership will then attempt to consense on. Since
> the consensus phase is an artifact of our *practice* of consensus
> rather than of our Bylaws (which say precisely jack about
> consensus), we can certainly consense on someone, and then the Board
> could elect them (and given that the Board are all members, it would
> be weird if they consensed and *then* failed to elect the person).
>
> Anybody have a different, better or more well-articualted idea of
> what the process going forward should look like?
>
> --S
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ever Falling
> <everfalling at gmail.com> wrote:
> i think the reason no one is really talking about anyone but Mitch
> is because no one else voluntarily threw their hat into this. if
> they did they did so upon personal request or upon seeing that there
> was a request for greater variety. so far, as much as i can tell,
> most of the other candidates seem to have the attitude of 'sure i'll
> do it' instead of 'i want to do it'.
>
> if it weren't for the fact that you insist that we have more than
> just one person to choose from, even though originally no one else
> was being nominated or individually putting their hat in, we'd have
> been over and done with the whole 'mitch isn't around enough' issue
> and have moved forward. It just seems like you compounded what was,
> at least for everyone else, a pretty straight forward decision and
> that even after your minor concerns have been met multiple times to
> a reasonable extent you still insist it's not enough.
>
> i agree that mulling this over on the list is counter to what we all
> agreed on last week and that the two week plan of nomination and
> then consensus vote should be carried out.
>
> how about this. if you wish for more discussion bout the other
> candidates please initiate it. what do you think makes the others a
> better choice? do you even think they're better choices? give us a
> launching point of discussion instead of complaining no one else is
> considering everyone else would rather be done with this a week ago.
>
> also try not to read these replies with a mental tone of hostility
> because that isn't at all the indention.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Christie Dudley
> <longobord at gmail.com> wrote:
> What about the other candidates?
>
> Who has thoughts on Mikolaj?
>
> Who has thoughts on Lief?
>
> Why aren't we talking about anyone but Mitch?
>
> Christie
> _______
> "We also briefly discussed having officers replaced by very small
> shell scripts." -- Noisebridge meeting notes 2008-06-17
>
> The outer bounds is only the beginning. http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Rachel McConnell
> <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
> Christie, here are some thoughts I had regarding your position on
> Mitch
> as ED.
>
> I understand why you would object to an 'absentee' ED. I posit to you
> that there are significant benefits as well. Noisebridge has an
> extraordinarily rich interaction with other hackerspaces (and
> generally
> cool people) *worldwide*, due primarily to our roving ambassadors,
> Jake
> and Mitch. We've got relationships with hackers not only in Chicago,
> Toronto, Atlanta, etc in North America, but also in Germany and Japan,
> and probably others I'm not yet aware of.
>
> Have you asked Mitch if his schedule will continue to be that he's
> gone
> a great deal of the time? It may be that he'll be around more in
> 2010,
> which would allow him to keep more abreast of the activities of the
> organization.
>
> To address your issue further: regarding keeping abreast of the
> ongoing
> needs of the organization, we've been pretty clear that this is not
> actually the business of the ED, but of the members. The ED is *not*
> our leader. I believe you might respond to this that the ED is
> perceived as such by outsiders, and I would respond to that with, how
> does that cause a problem for us?
>
> Rachel
>
> Christie Dudley wrote:
> > My issues with Mitch are fairly minor. I think he's a great
> person, but
> > he's not terribly involved in the immediate Noisebridge
> community. He's
> > just not around much and doesn't keep abreast of the breadth of
> totally
> > excellent things going on at Noisebridge, or the ongoing needs of
> the
> > organization.
> >
> > In addition to the 'representational' part that Vlad brought up
> (can he
> > represent us well if he doesn't know us well?) It is the ED's job to
> > call the board meetings, set the agenda and preside. I think
> Rachel has
> > been doing a fine job of this so far, but it's not her job.
> (Legally,
> > according to the bylaws) I'd really like to see an ED who can do
> the
> > job, who understands when board meetings are needed and will make
> that
> > happen.
> >
> > I think Mitch could do a fair job of muddling through if there
> were no
> > other candidates. But there are other candidates who are much more
> > capable of doing a good job with what little is required of them.
> It
> > appalls me that we have to have the choice of the board as our only
> > option, especially when it's not the best one.
> >
> > I don't understand why this discussion keeps coming back to Mitch/
> Not
> > Mitch. I thought it was the will of the members to decide who.
> Why are
> > we not comparing Mitch/Mikolaj/whoever? This false dichotomy is
> killing
> > serious consideration of the candidates.
> >
> > We already decided at the meeting this coming week that we would
> *not*
> > try to form a consensus on the candidates for ED, but rather
> narrow it
> > down to one to consense on next week. WHY do we keep coming back to
> > this whole false dichotomy?
> >
> > Christie
> > _______
> > "We also briefly discussed having officers replaced by very small
> shell
> > scripts." -- Noisebridge meeting notes 2008-06-17
> >
> > The outer bounds is only the beginning.
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ani Niow <v at oneletterwonder.com
> > <mailto:v at oneletterwonder.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to formally re-nominate Mitch for the position of
> the
> > Executive Director of Noisebridge.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Ani
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Malone
> > <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com <mailto:ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Sai Emrys
> > <noisebridge at saizai.com <mailto:noisebridge at saizai.com>>
> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Andy Isaacson
> > <adi at hexapodia.org <mailto:adi at hexapodia.org>> wrote:
> > >> We currently have all of these things. AFAIK, until the
> > board appoints
> > >> a new ED, Jake continues in his appointment from last
> year.
> > >
> > > That's my reading as well. Officers serve until
> replaced; Board
> > > members have terms of office.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, you have that kind of backwards.
> > Both have terms -- 1 year. Board members remain in office
> until
> > they
> > are replaced.
> > There is no such clause for officers. Our bylaws state that
> > they must
> > be appointed annually, and as the year ran up at the
> beginning of
> > October, so did the term for all three officer positions.
> >
> > Noisebridge has been without an ED since October. This
> has been
> > stated at a board meeting and a general meeting.
> > In fact, two board members even tried to simply appoint an
> ED at the
> > last board meeting to "fix" this. They even planned to do
> so
> > without
> > consulting the members before conceding to objections that
> while the
> > legal authority exists for them to do that, it runs
> completely
> > against
> > Noisebridge policy.
> >
> >
> >
> > In general, I would like to thank all of you for turning
> this into a
> > discussion about what people feel the ED is, and absolutely
> > nothing to
> > do with actually selecting a new one.
> > You might argue that you feel defining the role is the
> same thing.
> > It's not -- who it is, and what they will be doing are two
> different
> > controversial subjects. Intertwining them has, as best I
> can tell,
> > resulted in absolutely no progress on either side.
> >
> > So any chance this can get back on topic to its original
> intent of
> > nominating people for the ED? Or should I simply give up?
> >
> > Jeffrey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shannon Lee
> (503) 539-3700
>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100228/5d62e4d9/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list