[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

Jeffrey Malone ieatlint at tehinterweb.com
Mon Mar 1 16:08:02 UTC 2010


The board members discussed it.  Noisebridge members discussed it.

The board had no added authority over any member on the issue, and I feel that you're implying otherwise.  That the board picks someone, and asks the membership for approval.
We explicitly work by policy that the board carries out the will of the membership.  Having them pick an officer gives them the authority to choose who is even an eligible candidate.

If you want a structure like that, form an ED selection committee that any member can be part of.  They can work out a candidate and propose it to the rest of the members.

There is no need to assign more duties/authority to the board, especially when it comes to selecting officers.

Jeffrey

----- Original message -----
> 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."




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list