[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Ever Falling
everfalling at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 07:08:53 UTC 2010
and if we fail to consense on all those lined up for candidacy? what if,
after reviewing all options, a previous candidate looks much better in
comparison? do we get the board to elect them so we can try again? it just
seems like that process, even with as little as 3 people, would take a
month, maybe more, if considering the time it takes to debate the pros and
cons of the then current candidate and then /try/ to reach consensus one at
a time... and what if someone further down the line is a better choice but
we end up electing an earlier one just to get it over with? a majority
voting system would allow members to weight the pro's and con's of each
candidate parallel to each other and make a more informed decision as a
whole. i know NB is in love with consensus but i still think that given a
multiple choice problem there should be a vote as a one-by-one consensus
process is rittled with problems and wastes a great deal of time. there has
to be consideration about when one system doesn't work or one system works
better than another. to stick to a single system all the time on principal
does no one any good.
god...does THIS need its own topic now? talk about a can of worms...
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
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/20100228/f289dfc6/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list