[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Shannon Lee
shannon at scatter.com
Mon Mar 1 15:16:31 UTC 2010
Jefferey,
Before the "the board selects someone" phase, there was a "does anybody want
to be treasurer?" phase -- and of course, your having volunteered means that
nobody had to ask you :) I assure you that the board discussed it.
--S
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jeffrey Malone <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that the process Shannon describes in no way
> reflects the process that led to me becoming an officer.
>
> I was never approached by the board, but rather volunteered. I then very
> breifly spoke to Mitch about it. At no time did the board speak to me, or
> discuss me in any capacity that has been revealed to me.
>
> The board also rubber stamped me well after consensus was reached, not
> before.
>
> I also personally would object to increasing the duty of the board to pick
> our officers and ask the membership for consensus.
> Our board is here to serve us, not try to get approval from us to do
> things. That's not rubber stamping the will of the members.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> ----- Original message -----
> > 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."
>
>
--
Shannon Lee
(503) 539-3700
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100301/b03be2cf/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list