Staff on the Board

Oct 22 22:34 UTC 1996

Moving this discussion from another item:

>#7 of 26: by Richard Wallner (kerouac) on Sun, Oct 20, 1996 (14:56):
> I think anyone currently on staff should abstain this time around for
> running for the Board.  There is too high a percentage of staff members
> on the board, and regular users have a distinct disadvantage when it
> comes to running against staffers for the board.  It is a name
> recognition thing.  As it stands, the same people currently on the board
> who are also on staff are going to get re-elected even if perfectly good
> people who are regular users decide to run.  There are only so many
> members who are even going to vote, and the ones that are will vote for
> the names they know rather than using more objective criteria.
> 
> As things stand, half of staff is going to be on the board for another
> year anyway.  Why not the rest of you baffers abstain and let other
> people have a chance to serve?  It may not seem fair but it also isnt
> fair for certain people to have an institutional advantage in running
> year after year.  I think Grex would be a stronger place if more people
> interested in getting involved had the opportunity.  But the fact is
> that certain people's names being on the ballot at all actually
> effectively denies folks these opportunities.
>
>#8 of 26: by Steve Gibbard (scg) on Sun, Oct 20, 1996 (15:53):
> If the members don't want staff people on the board, they won't vote for
staff > people.  Thos of us staffers who are running are letting the members to
chose > staffers if they want to. > >#9 of 26: by Scott helmke (scott) on Sun,
Oct 20, 1996 (16:15): > Kerouac, our members are not idiots. > >#10 of 26: by
Catriona Davis (e4808mc) on Sun, Oct 20, 1996 (16:42): > The bylaw that keeps
people from serving more than two consecutive terms seems > to handle kerouac's
objection, even if we were idiots ;-). > >#22 of 26: by Richard Wallner
(kerouac) on Tue, Oct 22, 1996 (16:01): > The two year rule would normally
solve this problem, but the  > staff is so large that even when a staffer cant
run, there is  > always another staffer to take their place.  SRW cant run, but
 > Valerie can.  Next year, Valerie wont be able to run, but SRW  > will.  This
is becoming a rather obvious cycle.  The same  > people vote for the same
people every year.   This prevents a  > healthy turnover on the board, and
could potentially lead to  > board/staff becoming more institutionally cut 
regular users. >  > What I think is that three of the seven board seats should
be  > designated "staff" seats, and that staff only should be  > allowed to run
for them. The other four should be "at large"  > seats which only regular users
can run for.  This would  > ensure that both staff and regular users have a
balanced  > presence on the board.  It just doesn't look good when the 10 > or
11 staff members roate six of the seven board seats among > themselves at all
times.  Which is basically the case. >  >#24 of 26: by Rob Henderson (robh) on
Tue, Oct 22, 1996 (17:03): > Re 22 - I guess I have to repeat the obvious,
which has been stated > several times already: If people don't *want* staff
members on the > Board, they shouldn't *vote* for them.  I don't think kerouac
has > made any kind of response to that particular suggestion.  Why should >
our members be denied the chance to vote for people they want to serve > on the
Board, just because those people have proven that they can > serve on staff? >
>#25 of 26: by Valerie Mates (popcorn) on Tue, Oct 22, 1996 (17:07): > Also,
what about people who are elected to the board and then later added to > the
staff?  It's happened a number of times.

response 2 of 47:

Oct 22 22:51 UTC 1996

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."   I haven't heard that we have a 
sizable number of wannabe board members whose aspirations are being 
frustrated by the staff-board members.
 
This is the term limits argument -- turnover on the board is good for 
its own sake.  I don't buy it.

response 4 of 47:

Oct 22 23:47 UTC 1996

OK, I moved this here because there are just so *many* things I want to say
to this and I don't want to further sidetrack the nominations item.

First and most important, a question for Richard:  *Why* is it bad to have
too many staff on the board?  You haven't given *any* reason why this problem
you are trying to solve is a problem.  Why are we even discussing this?

Let's consider Rob Argy (ajax).  You probably know who he is.  He particpates
actively in this conference.  He does a lot of work for Grex on the JCC sales.
He answers a large fraction of the "write help" requests on this system.  He
has done a variety of surveys of users and data collection of different sorts.
He's helped on writing various help files and he designed the logo on our Web
pages.  He's been active in a lot of different capacities on Grex (and
Arbornet for that matter) for some time.  He isn't a staff member.  He isn't
a board member.  He's a "regular user."  If he chose to run for the board,
he'd certainly have a good chance against any staff member.

It's not being on staff that gives you an unnatural advantage in board
elections.  When I vote for board members, I look for people with sound
judgement, good communications skills, a solid understanding of what Grex
is about and what it stands for, honesty and respect for user's rights, and
a willingness to dedicate time to helping Grex and its mission.  I think
that's what most people vote for.  Rob would be an excellent board candidate.

But those are almost *exactly* the same qualifications we look for in staff
members.  Staff members must be good enough at understanding the limitations
of their Unix knowledge (everyone's Unix knowledge is limited) to be able to
function as root without doing any deadly damage to the system.  However,
an effective board member should also have some technical capability, since
they have to make decisions on technical issues competently.  Board members
sometimes have to act as public representatives for Grex, so it helps if
they are outgoing people with good personal skills.  But staff work requires
lots of interaction with users and administrators of other sites, so people
skills are valuable there too.  Rob would also be an excellent staff person.

In the past, we've had people move in both directions, as Valerie says.  We've
certainly had staff people successfully run for board positions, and we've
had board members appointed to the staff.  The reason for the strong overlap
in people is because there is a strong overlap in qualifications.  The
definition of "staff" is that you have the root password and access to the
room where the computer is kept.  The only reason we have *any* board members
that aren't on staff is that some of them contribute to Grex in ways that
don't require them to have this access.  If Misti or any other board member
announced that she wanted to get involved in some of the system administration
stuff, then I expect the board would approve her addition to staff.  I don't
think the users have ever elected a board member who the other board members
wouldn't have been willing to appoint to staff, if they wanted to contribute
to Grex in that way, instead of others.  You'll find the non-staff board
members often have other kinds of involvement in Grex, like Mark serving as
treasurer and Misti as publicity chair.  Most of the board members do things
for Grex.  The ones who undertake jobs of a less technical nature don't become
staff because they don't need staff access.

If we had a rule like the one Richard proposes, staff and board would be in
*competition* for people.  We offer staff positions to many of the people
who would also be great board candidates.  All those people would then be
unable to run for the "regular" board seats.  So would those seats be filled
by only people who are "good enough" for staff?  Would people refuse to
become involved on the technical side of Grex because it would limit their
chance to win a board seat?  Mark Conger is a professional programmer and
could likely get involved on the staff side if he were interested and had
time.  Would we have to refuse to allow him to do so because he was a board
member?  All of this is insane.  We'd be tieing ourselves up with a mass of
red tape that accomplishes nothing except to get in the way of people serving
Grex in the way they feel best able, and members voting for the people they
would most like to see represent them on the board.

Years ago Arbornet had this same discussion, and a lot of pressure was placed
on staff members not to run for board and to separate the staff from the
board.  It never got to be a firm rule, but it was certainly part of a trend
that led to Arbornet not having any staff.  The wanted board and staff clearly
separated and board clearly in control of staff.  But, in fact, in the entire
history of Arbornet, there was only one administration that worked well, and
the president was Jim Knight, their main technical person, and there were
other staffers on board.

>SRW can't run, but Valerie can.  Next year, Valerie wont be able to run, but
>SRW will.

So?  SRW and Valerie are not interchangable just because they are both on
staff.  We aren't all clones of each other.  They are both very dedicated to
Grex, and both fine board members.  As long as the members approve of them,
and they are willing, why shouldn't they be re-elected?

>The same people vote for the same people every year.

I'm running for board for the first time this year.  I'm not "the same people"
even if I am on staff.  We regularly add new people to staff.  The staff isn't
the "same people" either.

For a person who professes to dislike M-Net, Richard has an amazing ability
to dig up old M-Net ideas and propose them as solutions to all of Grex's
"problems."

response 6 of 47:

Oct 23 00:49 UTC 1996

Suppose we turn Grex into a true coop: a _worker's_ coop?  Then _only_ staff
could be on the board.  Get rid of all these pesky _consumer_ members. 
<Really, I'm only joking.  Kerouac, *don't* respond.>

response 8 of 47:

Oct 23 06:53 UTC 1996

And of the three of us elected the year before that, only two, srw and 
popcorn, were on staff at the time.  I was on the board for about a year 
before becoming staff.

response 10 of 47:

Oct 23 12:14 UTC 1996

members vote as they wish, selecting from the available candidates. the
2-yr idea was to introduce a forced change and is sufficient as it stands.
 
kerouac, you gonna run? can i nominate kerouac? if so, consider him
nominated.

response 12 of 47:

Oct 23 16:00 UTC 1996

   I think Ken said something like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I don't think things are broken.  If they are, I think the voting populace
will tell us.
   Richard, I am amazed at how you look at things and see problems
where otehrs don't.  M-net is a fine example of a system where
staff and board functions are completely seperate.  Grex isn't M-Net.

response 14 of 47:

Oct 23 16:19 UTC 1996

Catriona -- Type "!staff" to see a listing of people on staff, and
"!board" to see a list of people on the board, if you're curious.

response 16 of 47:

Oct 23 17:04 UTC 1996

oops, I meant two years not two terms...serve two years, then sit out
until someone else had had the opportunity to serve two years.

response 18 of 47:

Oct 23 18:39 UTC 1996

        Yer right... Avoid the question, it's easiest.

response 20 of 47:

Oct 23 21:53 UTC 1996

Nephi's status has been somewhat irregular.  He has been on the staff mailing
list and in the staff conference, but doesn't actually have any other staff
access (eg, he can't edit the motd).  I don't know the history of this.  It
isn't "normal."  Among the least of the reasons why I'd be happy to seen Mike
formally on staff would be that it would be nice not to have people in such
an ambiguous status.  I'd generally be disinclined to create such cases in
the future, but the Grexian way is to be flexible rather than bureaucratic,
so the borderlands of staff will probably continue to be vague in many ways
in the future.  But you aren't really absolutely seriously "on staff" until
you know the root password.

response 22 of 47:

Oct 24 03:23 UTC 1996

The MOTD group is granted as needed and has nothing to do with staff.
I believe you do not need root to be a staff member. We have had other
non-root staff in the past. Party admin, and Conf Admin are both staff
positions, I think. I'd say any job that needs board approval should correctky
be called staff. It just depends on how you define the terms. Access to the
staff mail and conferences is granted by the board, too, and separately. Root
is also separately granted. (At least that is how I remember the rules).

response 24 of 47:

Oct 24 04:36 UTC 1996

Thanks for not slamming the door.