[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

Tue Mar 2 01:22:14 UTC 2010

David, normally I would describe your senses for applying the [drama]  
tag as infallible.  In this case, though, we're simply discussing,  
even though it is a very long thread.

I've removed the [drama] tag to allow this discussion to either  
naturally find its own end or burst into flames, at which point I will  
certainly re-apply the [drama] tag if you don't first.

This is not to say there won't be drama aplenty at tomorrow's  
meeting.  Maybe bring a [drama] picket sign with you, or a firehose.

Vlad

On Mar 1, 2010, at 5:10 PM, davidfine wrote:

> I have added the [drama] tag to this thread. Please keep this tag in  
> the
> subject and carry on.
> Thanks for helping me sort my inbox!
> --D
>
> On 3/1/10 3:01 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Vlad  
>> Spears<spears at 2secondfuse.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Two questions then:
>>>
>>> 1) If we select an Executive Director by committee, how do we keep  
>>> the
>>> committee from becoming an authority point in exactly the way you  
>>> fear for
>>> the Board?  This is the beginning of bureaucracy.
>>>
>> The fact that members could join the committee if they wish to have a
>> voice in the process would prevent it the committee from being a  
>> place
>> of undue authority.  It's how committees have previously worked at
>> Noisebridge.
>>
>>
>>> 2) I agree that membership should always have the option of  
>>> bringing the
>>> Board's choices to consensus if desired.  And anyone can do that  
>>> whenever
>>> they like, anyway, simply by putting it up for discussion and  
>>> consensus at a
>>> Tuesday night meeting.  If the position of the Executive Director,  
>>> other
>>> Officers and the Board are to be ones that do as little as  
>>> possible to keep
>>> the organization running, why is it not appropriate for them to  
>>> find people
>>> to fill do-nothing jobs which only exist because they are required  
>>> by law,
>>> which we can then block if we don't agree with as Christie has  
>>> just done?
>>>
>> Christie just objected to an item that a member put before consensus,
>> not the board.
>>
>> I fear the board simply acting without approval of the membership on
>> such a major issue as dangerous.  The position of ED is impotent per
>> Noisebridge policy, but the law recognises a very broad authority of
>> the ED.  It is as such vital in my opinion that we select a person
>> that the membership trusts.  I feel that is best done by the
>> membership.
>>
>>
>>>  This certainly sounds like "keeping the organization running".   
>>> In a
>>> nutshell, aren't you really expressing no-confidence in the  
>>> existing Board
>>> to do their non-jobs and present us with an appropriate person to  
>>> also do a
>>> non-job?
>>>
>> I would not go so far as to say I have no confidence in the board,  
>> but
>> I definitely have a bruised sense of trust.
>> Additionally, I never saw the duty of choosing an ED as a role of  
>> the board.
>>
>> This view, I feel, is supported by this quote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Andy Isaacson<adi at hexapodia.org>   
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The board is powerless, just as it should be.  The board exists  
>>> solely
>>> to implement the will of the members and to satisfy the  
>>> requirement that
>>> we have a board.
>>>
>> The thread itself, entitled "Board Member Platforms" echoes that
>> sentiment several times over from several people.
>> That is the basis on which I elected board members.  Choosing an ED  
>> is
>> a power, in my opinion, even if they ask the membership to approve
>> their decision.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think that the order as you suggest them is backwards.
>>>>
>>>> We elected the board to do our will -- to rubber stamp decisions of
>>>> the members through consensus.
>>>> Them selecting an ED and asking the membership for approval is  
>>>> not in
>>>> line with that.  Additionally, there is no benefit to this method  
>>>> of
>>>> working.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, the specific incident I was referring to was NOT a
>>>> situation in which a person would have been selected pending the
>>>> approval of the membership.  The objections raised were due to  
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with a committee being formed to select a  
>>>> person for
>>>> an officer position, and then have that person be put before the  
>>>> rest
>>>> of the group for approval.  But I see no reason why that committee
>>>> should be the board members.
>>>> As the power rests with the members, per our policy, I feel it  
>>>> should
>>>> be comprised of members.  If a member who is also on the board  
>>>> wishes
>>>> to participate, then great, that's their right as a member.
>>>>
>>>> In my personal opinion, we elected board members to not make  
>>>> decisions
>>>> on behalf of the members, but to carry out the will of them.  That
>>>> will is not a blanket "we elected you, so do what you want"  
>>>> deal.  It
>>>> is, as I see it, a position where they act as little as possible to
>>>> keep the organisation running, and have membership consensus for
>>>> decisions.
>>>> I don't want the board choosing our ED.  I just want them to rubber
>>>> stamp the membership's choice for ED.
>>>>
>>>> Jeffrey
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Vlad Spears<spears at 2secondfuse.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey, I'm not sure why the Board's action was a problem for  
>>>>> you.
>>>>>  Could
>>>>> you explain it for my benefit, and perhaps the benefit of anyone  
>>>>> else
>>>>> seeking clarity in this sinuous discussion?
>>>>> Directly from the Bylaws:
>>>>> "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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 3. Removal. Subject to the rights, if any, of an officer  
>>>>> under
>>>>> any
>>>>> contract of employment, any officer may be removed, with or  
>>>>> without
>>>>> cause,
>>>>> by the Board of Directors or by an officer on whom such power of  
>>>>> removal
>>>>> may
>>>>> be conferred by the Board of Directors."
>>>>>
>>>>> We elected the Board to do our will.  I think the last Board  
>>>>> member we
>>>>> elected was Ani, yes?  One of the actions they take in their job  
>>>>> to do
>>>>> our
>>>>> will is to elect the Executive Director.  It doesn't make sense  
>>>>> to me
>>>>> that
>>>>> if they can remove an officer at any time, you feel they cannot  
>>>>> also
>>>>> elect
>>>>> one without first consulting the membership.  We, the  
>>>>> membership, can
>>>>> then
>>>>> consense on their choice and the process goes forward.  If  
>>>>> consensus
>>>>> can't
>>>>> be reached after discussion and debate, the Board offers up  
>>>>> another
>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a feature, not a bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To quote the "meeting minutes" from the last board meeting:
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. We seem to need to appoint an executive director for 2010.   
>>>>> Shannon
>>>>>
>>>>> and Andy wanted to reappoint Jake as our figurehead, but Ani  
>>>>> didn't
>>>>>
>>>>> agree.  We proposed to appoint Mitch, so Andy sent Mitch an email
>>>>>
>>>>> asking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel this was written with an obvious bias.
>>>>> As an attendee, my memory of the events were this:
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the agenda items was to discuss the topic of the ED.
>>>>> It was stated that the term of the officers are for one year, and
>>>>> unlike the board members, there is no clause stating that they  
>>>>> remain
>>>>> on until a replacement is selected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either you (Shannon) or Andy, I don't recall which, suggested  
>>>>> that the
>>>>> board simply re-appoint the former ED immediately.
>>>>> As an observer, I objected to appointing an officer without  
>>>>> consensus.
>>>>> Ani also objected on these grounds.  A brief discussion ensued, in
>>>>> which Miloh agreed that the board shouldn't act without the  
>>>>> consensus
>>>>> of the membership.  Andy and Shannon then withdrew the item  
>>>>> without an
>>>>> actual attempted vote.
>>>>> The topic then continued as described in the notes.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, this attempted act stepped well beyond the  
>>>>> authority
>>>>> that is prescribed by our policies.  I later heard arguments
>>>>> attempting to justify the attempt, quoting that the bylaws  
>>>>> recognise
>>>>> the authority of the board to appoint officers -- not the  
>>>>> membership.
>>>>> That obviously did not appease my concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes, I am wary of ANY sudden suggestion of new authority for  
>>>>> the
>>>>> board that has not been widely stated before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Shannon  
>>>>> Lee<shannon at scatter.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Jeffrey Malone<ieatlint at tehinterweb.com 
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> "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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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