Re: [sudo-discuss] [consensus] Nominations for Board of Directors

Jenny, Are you reacting to my words, or are you willing to accept feedback? Matt H

On Sunday, October 27, 2013, Jenny Ryan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Harbowy <hbergeronx(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > >> Quite frankly: no hierarchy is a bad idea. Minimal, flat, and respectful >> leadership with as much power devolved/delegated as possible is great...but >> there's always going to be people with less decision making authority than >> others. Not everyone is going to have signing authority at the bank, and >> most other organizations are going to want some form of continuity with >> regard to point of contact. > > > Our Articles clearly outline that decisions are made by either full or > majority consensus, meaning that no member has more or less decision-making > authority than any other member. The role of the board members would be to > finalize the collective decision-making process on paper. > > We do have a bank account, and those who can sign checks are essentially > those who've volunteered to do so. > > As it currently stands, whoever reaches out to another organization (be > it other hackerspaces or grant-making agencies) becomes the point of > contact for that relationship. > > >> Being on the board of a successful organization is a point of some >> pride, but likewise, being on the board of a sinking ship is stressful and >> nerve wracking, especially when creditors come calling. If you intend to >> operate as a cash business, you're going to need a leadership that can make >> decisions on when to save and when to spend. If you intend to take on debt, >> such as a mortgage or lease might entail, you're going to need to own your >> decisions for good or bad, and expect praise when you lead with clarity, >> and expect a lawsuit when you slack. You will not have any choice in the >> matter: all organizations have good and bad days. >> > > We are not a 'cash business,' but I may unclear on what you mean by that. > A primary value of Sudo Room is cultivating a 'leader-full' membership - > rather than no one having responsibility, we all do. I find it presumptuous > to assume that our organization 'needs' leadership, when many of our > members are involved in successful organizations that continue to run > without a traditional leadership structure. > > >> Honestly, Sudo Room seems to live hand to mouth every month because you >> do not have a leadership willing to make tough decisions to save a buffer, >> so that your landlord has less power over you. You had a plan to save but >> have not executed on it. You are indebted, whether you acknowledge it or >> not, to your (hopefully benevolent) dictators, like your Lord George, who >> because they hold the power of debt above you, disempower you. What you >> need is a renewed commitment to a savings plan, to live not at the lordship >> of the weather but to be free through the insurance policy of a positive >> cash flow. Perhaps this means developing relationships with a diverse set >> of sources of wealth: both talent that adds value as well as grant giving >> people and organizations. >> > > I would agree that the system of landlords and renting property is > innately corrupt, in part because of the top-down form of power and > authority it perpetuates. Part of the motivation for incorporating and > initiating the non-profit process is to be able to receive grants intended > for 501c3 organizations, and I agree it's important to diversify our > sources of funding. > > >> You cannot de emphasize your board if you expect to be taken seriously >> by other organizations, unless you only ever want to deal with >> organizations that have similar ad hoc leadership. Honestly, I don't >> believe that Noisebridge operates without the benefaction of invisible >> leaders who actually lever great power. I think that there is the visible >> process, and an invisible one, and you would be well served to make the >> invisible visible. I value honesty and radical transparency, and I think >> you should, too. >> >> > Sudo Room should not sacrifice its foundational values so as to be taken > seriously by traditional power structures. This is part and parcel of being > a vessel of social change. Noisebridge has an ad hoc and ever-changing > do-ocracy of leaders, as does Sudo. The inscription of a Board merely makes > static what is in actuality a dynamic aspect of the community, hence its > role (in the vein of honesty and radical transparency) is as merely an > on-paper minimum satisfactory requirement for bureaucratic processes. Come > to any meeting of Noisebridge or Sudo and it will be readily apparent who's > currently taking on leadership roles. > > >> What will happen if you are not cautious at this step is that everyone >> will want to lead when things are good, and no one will want to lead when >> fields are fallow. But the only time you ever really need a leader is when >> times are tough, and the path is not clear. In those times, your leader >> will have a quiet, wise voice, and you will need to have a board that is >> listening, not speaking, if you hope to recover. Listening to that quiet >> voice. >> > > I have long been impressed with our community's capacity to listen to > each other as equals in the leadership of our space. > > >> I am strongly opposed to any proposal that involves enforced (or even >> "recommended") silence. What your leaders need to do is not toot their own >> horn, but advocate for those who do in the do ocracy, whether they be board >> members or not. The board is the voice of those who do not have the >> strength or courage to speak for themselves. The board needs to listen, not >> speak, and learn who to hand the megaphone to. Such a board may seem >> invisible, indistinguishable from and much like your "no hierarchy" board, >> but it is a very different thing. >> > > Our Directors are not our leaders, and Sudoers quite often toot each > other's horns in supporting strong projects, contributions to the space, > and wise proposals. I think we could *all* benefit from some facilitation > training to become even better at supporting those who feel afraid or > uncomfortable speaking for themselves. > > >> A board must not speak for themselves, but be the voice of consensus. >> What I have seen is a very strange form of popularity contest, which is why >> I have chosen to withdraw my energy from this group over the last few >> months. When you resume your commitments to transparency and saving, I will >> give more strongly. But this "we're nearing zero balance" bullshit must >> end, and you need to elect leaders who will deliver that end, soon, because >> that is your path to freedom. Demand a plan for that, or withhold your vote. >> >> A popularity contest? Our commitment to transparency means that all of > our human dramas, our difficulties in overcoming lifetimes of living within > a system that perpetuates hierarchy and oppression, are there on the table > for you to dissect from the comfort of your inbox. > > Saving is possible when there is an excess of income, which we do not now > have nor have we ever had - this much is true. Hence moving forward with > acquiring non-profit status and concretizing our membership policy (which I > believe is next on the agenda after electing a board, with many ideas > already discussed in previous meetings). > > >> Your board may seem immaterial because success will be driven by your >> members, but if you are wise, you will elect people who *can* lead without >> power, drive without steering, promote without ego, and choose without >> deciding. That should be the board you elect: and you *should* give them >> all the power, because they will behave with your values and for you. >> >> Think about this: who listens for the sense of the group, then works >> actively, builds consensus toward that? Elect them. Who demonstrates your >> values? >> > > Under our Articles of Association and the values we have defined as > shared values from day 1, we are all imbued with these responsibilities and > any Board is a construct of the State to satisfy minimum basic requirements > of on-paper responsibility. If we could route around this requirement, we > would. > > Jenny > > >> Matt H. >> >> >> On Sunday, October 27, 2013, Jenny Ryan wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan(a)clear.net> wrote: >>> >>>> just wondering how you're thinking about resumes that are available >>>> online or on a personal blog as different from LinkedIn, etc.. sincerely >>>> not sure what you mean by this paragraph below. >>>> >>>> sent from eddan.com >>>> >>>> > On Oct 26, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I also think it's important we de-emphasize the Board as much as >>>> possible - and in that vein would like to propose that anyone elected to >>>> the board not list their "position" on LinkedIn, Facebook etc to avoid the >>>> public image of having a hierarchical structure. However, it is indeed a >>>> position of responsibility that reflects commitment to the group and, as >>>> such, folks elected should be allowed to list it on job applications and >>>> resumes if so desired. In a similar vein, anyone on the compact should very >>>> much consider themselves a co-founder! >>>> >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Replying to you, Eddan, as well as the list, in case anyone else was >>> confused by this proposal. I was just thinking about the public perception >>> of hierarchy and ways to minimize that. My distinguishing between LinkedIn >>> and job applications was to distinguish between publicly- and >>> privately-communicated content - so an online [public] blog, resume, etc >>> would fall in the same category as LinkedIn for all intents and purposes. >>> >>> Just a suggestion, happy to discuss! >>> >>> >