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

[Jenny Ryan]

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Harbowy <hbergeronx at gmail.com>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 at 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 at 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!
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20131027/1415a040/attachment.html>