[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Jeffrey Malone
ieatlint at tehinterweb.com
Mon Mar 1 21:07:56 UTC 2010
What I'm saying is that "how it's been done" is a VERY relative term.
I don't know how the officers were selected in 2008, but I am very
aware of how I was selected in 2009. If what you describe is just
what happened with our secretary, then a single instance does not
indicate a pattern.
I'm also explicitly saying that this is not how things are done -- at
least, it is not a process that has ever been stated before. During
the elections for board members, when the candidates were asked for a
"platform to run on", I heard nothing about "oh, and we pick the
officers and then try to get the members approve our pick". I heard
statements solely of carrying out the will of the members.
In my opinion, stating that the board acts to select officers (beyond
the actual appointment in compliance with the will of the membership),
is authority. A group that allegedly is not to have authority is then
picking candidates at their discretion -- even if they get the
consensus of the membership.
For example, if we have a group of people, called A B C D which could
all theoretically get consensus from the membership to be an officer.
The majority of the group however would prefer A be the officer.
However, the board decides that B should be the candidate. Consensus
is reached, but it was the board that influenced the process. I feel
that is a totally unnecessary authority for the board to have. I've
also not seen the board have this authority -- and to continue arguing
to the contrary is actually worrying, as you're stating that the board
is acting secretly on matters that require no such discretion.
Call it overreacting, paranoia, or whatever. But a certain recent
attempted act of the board leaves me with distinct fears of them
acting beyond the authority that is prescribed to them.
Jeffrey
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> 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."
>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list