|
Grex > Coop12 > #194: Motion to encourage staff delegation of responsibility | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 91 of 120:
| 
Jun 25 04:08 UTC 2003 |
I do think that if Grex had paid employees, the solution to staff
miscommunication would be to hire a good manager. However, such is not
compatible with the generally anarchic culture that the staff has maintained
since the dawn of Grex. So something would have to give if we went that
route.
|
janc
|
|
response 92 of 120:
|
Jun 25 17:37 UTC 2003 |
One of the characteristics of a manager is that he or she has some form of
actual power. He can stop you from receiving a paycheck. Lacking that,
you have a leader who depends entirely on wheedling to get people moving in
any given direction. (Isn't that called a "big man"?) We actually have a
lot of people who cycle through that role, including Valerie, me and Mark
Conger. Effectiveness varies. I don't believe formalizing the role would
do any good. I decline to volunteer. Candidates for the job need to know
how to contact each individual staff member (often tricky) and which levers
work on them (usually obvious, which is probably why they are often busy
and tend to hide where people can't ask them to do more things).
The staff meeting had an agenda way longer than the time available. We will
be holding another staff meeting in two weeks, on July 7. Kip and Joe have
been invited to this. Dan Cross would be invited if we thought it was
likely he could come. The next board meeting is sometime after that and
I'd expect that we will be suggesting more than one new person be added to
staff at that time.
We will be resuming monthly staff meetings. I think it will be a while before
we again see so little on the agenda that we are tempted to skip meetings.
|
cross
|
|
response 93 of 120:
|
Jun 25 21:36 UTC 2003 |
Sorry I can't make it; the commutes a little far. :-)
|
kip
|
|
response 94 of 120:
|
Jun 25 22:59 UTC 2003 |
I wouldn't expect a "manager" type position to work here either. I believe
what the goal ought to be is a breadth of staff. No one discounts the depth
of the staff we are fortunate to have. However, having more staff to spread
that load around should give us a few more options when work needs to be done.
No single person is ever going to replace Jan, Marcus, or anyone else, but
having a few extra staff members is going to help give that "leader" some
flexibility.
|
jep
|
|
response 95 of 120:
|
Jun 26 04:05 UTC 2003 |
I'm seeing a lot of dissatisfaction with the way things are working
now. No one but Eric seems to believe his proposal would change
anything, and I don't think anyone believes it will pass. So, there's
going to be no policy change at present which will affect the number
of staff members.
Several people have said that some more staffers would help a lot, but
the mechanism to add them has existed for years. A couple have been
added, right? Only a couple, and those only recently. Why expect
anything to change? "Insanity is doing the same thing again while
expecting different results."
I didn't mean my suggestion in resp:81 to mean a boss of the staff,
but maybe more of an administrative assistant. I think there's a lot
of stuff that ought to be done which doesn't require the technical
wizardry of Marcus, and which wouldn't interest him, but which still
perhaps ought to be done. Keeping track of all the projects which
ought to be done, that would be one possible contribution.
re resp:91: The system does not belong solely to the staff, at least
in principle. Many people have every right and every reason to be
concerned about Grex. The staff's anarchy appears to be a problem for
everyone but the staff itself.
It's just an idea. I'm not necessarily convinced it's how things
should be, either. I do think it's different than anything anyone
else has mentioned, and I think it has some advantages which ought to
be considered, as well as some disadvantages which have been mentioned.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 96 of 120:
|
Jun 26 04:16 UTC 2003 |
I don't think staff has been added recently. There is a move to afoot to add
at least one at the next board meeting.
|
scg
|
|
response 97 of 120:
|
Jun 26 18:03 UTC 2003 |
I think the big issue right now is that the current staff composition dates
to six or seven years ago. A lot of us who were appointed to staff then were
excited about doing staff stuff for Grex, and had lots of time to do so. A
lot changes in six or seven years. Several of us have completely wandered
away from our staff functions. Those who are still making an effort to be
Grex staff have a lot going on in their lives that they didn't then.
It sounds like things are on the right track now in terms of recruiting new
people, but even that, of course, takes energy from volunteers. I'm hopeful
that once there are a few energetic new people on board, there may some more
energy to devote to getting normal staff processes rolling again, including
recruiting more new people as needed.
|
remmers
|
|
response 98 of 120:
|
Jun 30 11:29 UTC 2003 |
Tuesday, July 1 is the last day to vote on this.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 99 of 120:
|
Jun 30 18:09 UTC 2003 |
"The polls are open through the end of the day (EDT) on Saturday, July 1."
That's why I got confused. ;)
|
remmers
|
|
response 100 of 120:
|
Jul 1 11:04 UTC 2003 |
Oops. The July 1 is correct.
|
remmers
|
|
response 101 of 120:
|
Jul 2 04:17 UTC 2003 |
I've counted the votes. It's close enough that I want to wait
for the treasurer to certify the eligible voter list before
announcing the outcome. I have the list from him as of
yesteday, but he's not available for a few days, and it's
conceivable that a check or two arrived in today's mail
that would change the list of people whose votes should be
counted.
|
other
|
|
response 102 of 120:
|
Jul 2 05:00 UTC 2003 |
Since the treasurer is out of town until the 10th, would you feel
comfortable at least reporting the total number of users who voted?
|
remmers
|
|
response 103 of 120:
|
Jul 2 14:10 UTC 2003 |
68 votes were cast. Roughly 40% of those were member votes,
according to the latest available list of members.
I won't report the breakdown of yes/no votes at this time,
since a change in that after Mark certifies the final voter
list would compromise ballot secrecy.
|
other
|
|
response 104 of 120:
|
Jul 2 17:31 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, and I appreciate your discretion.
|
russ
|
|
response 105 of 120:
|
Jul 3 03:34 UTC 2003 |
Re #103: You could give the yes/no totals without distinction
between members and non-. We'd be able to figure that out after
the fact anyway.
|
janc
|
|
response 106 of 120:
|
Jul 4 01:44 UTC 2003 |
Or we could wait. It'll be a bit before Mark is back in town, but the
suspense won't kill us.
|
remmers
|
|
response 107 of 120:
|
Jul 5 13:14 UTC 2003 |
I'd prefer to wait before giving any figures. Combined yes/no totals
for members and non-members will likely give little clue as to the
official outcome - history tells us that the member and non-member
breakdowns are often widely divergent. Once I have a certified voter
list from Mark, I'll post all the usual info.
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 120:
|
Jul 6 11:38 UTC 2003 |
Hi all - I'll be able to respond on Friday. We didn't receive any Paypal
payments in time to affect the vote, but we might have gotten a check in the
mail. If any checks are postmarked 7/1 or earlier, I'll count them. (I'd
say this is unlikely, since I checked the box the day before, but we need to
be sure if the vote is close.)
|
other
|
|
response 109 of 120:
|
Jul 11 23:12 UTC 2003 |
Still awaiting the outcome...
|
aruba
|
|
response 110 of 120:
|
Jul 12 13:32 UTC 2003 |
I checked the box yesterday and adjusted the voters list accordingly. Sorry
for the delay.
|
davel
|
|
response 111 of 120:
|
Jul 12 17:06 UTC 2003 |
... and the results are ... <drumroll> ??????????????????
|
remmers
|
|
response 112 of 120:
|
Jul 12 19:00 UTC 2003 |
... as follows:
# of voting members who cast ballots: 29
yes: 14
no: 15
The motion fails.
|
remmers
|
|
response 113 of 120:
|
Jul 12 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Incidentally, in resp:103 I reported an incorrect figure for the
total number of votes (member and non-member) cast. It was 96, not
68.
Since any user can run the vote program and record a vote, I always
report the non-member vote totals. These are unofficial, since they
don't count toward determining the outcome. The breakdown of non-member
votes on this motion was 58 yes, 9 no. The member and non-member
votes are typically quite different, it should be noted.
|
other
|
|
response 114 of 120:
|
Jul 12 19:30 UTC 2003 |
Anyone care to suggest an interpretation/analysis of the results?
|
carson
|
|
response 115 of 120:
|
Jul 13 01:14 UTC 2003 |
(apathy toward an irrelevant vote?)
|