[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
jim
jim at well.com
Mon Mar 1 19:53:06 UTC 2010
+1
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:21 -0800, Shannon Lee wrote:
> 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."
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list