[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Shannon Lee
shannon at scatter.com
Mon Mar 1 16:21:40 UTC 2010
Dude, I'm not giving an "I think this is how it ought to be" here, I'm just
saying that this is how it's been done. I have been finding that lots of
people don't know that this is how it's been done, which is why I posted
that explanation. Please don't mistake my explanation for endorsement.
What I'm saying is, everybody I've talked to has a (different) idea of how
this process is supposed to work, and none of them match my experience of
how it has actually worked -- and if we want a different system, we need to
sit down and hash it out, and *not* just fall back on "but this is the way
it works" -- because nobody currently agrees on "how it works."
I also think that "changing the way it's done" in the middle of doing it is
a mistake. My preference would have been to get our final outstanding
officer slot filled and *then* have a series of meetings where we come up
with an official process, but maybe Christie is right and we should do that
first. We certainly shouldn't do them concurrently.
--S
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Jeffrey Malone <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>wrote:
> 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."
>
>
--
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/20100301/16e1ce94/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list