Hi everyone,
Thank you Niels for bringing this forward. Personally I think it is an
awesome idea.
> My own opinion on this is that a Presidency could/should actually be a
> _minimum_ of two years. I see things opposite of the way you are
> presenting them. I believe as in most 'jobs' your vision and your
> ideas for your own stamp on the position may (and probably should)
> take more that a year.
To begin, the notions of "your vision" and "your stamp", are dangerous
ones and smack of individualism at the expense of community. It
presupposes our community is made up of persons lacking vision that
wish to be lead rather than a group of people that already know what
they want, have found others that share that vision, and wish to
participate in working toward that collective vision.
I think good leadership works best when it facilitates the collective
vision of the constituents it serves. If anything it should serve to
amplify and resonate that collective vision/spirit while remaining as
unbiased and transparent as possible.
The notion of leadership _defining_ a group's future, I again find
somewhat troubling. Call me odd but it seems a tad dictatorial to me
(very 2 peson - zero sum), and forgive me but the notion of a two-year
lock in sounds more like the software we're trying trying to escape from
than something that strives to promote community, active participation,
and diversity.
> So a question might be -- Should you choose to be involved with the
> executive for 2 or 3 terms to evolve your vision (with input for your
> other Exec and the members) to do the best for the group OR
> should you spend a year changing things to your vision and ideas and
> then abruptly leave the Executive and the members without a follow
> through. Hmmm... I think that may have a way of confusing and
> fracturing the membership.
Again, see the above. I'll again differ with the notion of "evolving
one's vision". We already have a collective vision and it will evolve
regardless of how hard someone will try to impose their own vision it.
If anything, catering to a personal vision as opposed to a collective
vision will be what confuses and fractures our community over time.
Furthermore, if the notion of term limits fracturing and destabilizing
the group were true, why do so many service organizations not only
manage, but thrive with this practise? In these instances the term is
usually one year because the role of the president is to serve the group
and it's collective vision, not for someone to pursue their vision and
put their mark on the organization. The exercise favours sharing
leadership as a means of building the capacity of the group as a whole
rather than benefiting a handful of people 2-3 years at a time.
What I'm talking here is a model that builds the community up along with
the leader ('n' person, non-zero sum), as opposed to a model that builds
up the leader at the expense of the community (2 person, zero sum).
Who would do that, you ask? What is the motivation to selflessly focus
on a community at the expense of one's own vision? What's in it for me?
Service for the betterment of the community as a whole? Isn't that
communist? Rather, it sounds a lot like the way the rest of the FOSS
community works doesn't it? (again, 'n' person, non-zero sum)
Here how the math works. In five years we could have 5*(number of
incumbents) of people that have experience in a leadership capacity as
opposed to... a much lower number. These people will have had the
opportunity to stretch and hone their skills a fair bit, earn the
respect of their peers, and will take that into other communities they
are involved in.... do you see it yet?
If the group as a whole is invested in the idea of community, active
participation and empowering people via technology, what could be a
better means to achieve that?
Why does this work? Because it isn't based on one person's vision and
agenda, but rather always based on the group as a whole's.
With respect to the issue of fracturing etc., If the roles and
responsibilities are organized in such a fashion that members with a bit
of tutelage from their predecessor, can basically pick up where the
other left off (i.e. turn key), it isn't a problem. If you are working
toward a collective vision that isn't a problem. It only becomes an
issue when the goal changes from so-called leader to so-called leader,
and there are less than amicable exchanges of duties.
> The idea of Past President was a position appointed by the Elected
> Executive. It has not been used in > the last two terms. In the 2003
> term Jeff was appointed as
> Communications Coordinator as we felt that title was more telling of
> his actually duties and then in 2004 Jason Louie was appointed as
> CC.
>
> Your idea that the President retires to become an appointed position
> (or required by bylaw) on a board where a new President has been
> elected may not (IMO) serve the needs of the Executive Board or the
> group as a whole.
>
> The way I envision that (worst case scenario as always :) is that the
> newly transplanted Past President had not had enough time to fulfill
> his vision/agenda for the group in his 1 year term. Now a new
> President is elected who has entirely different visions and agenda and
> proceeds to negate and alter everything done by the Past President
> during his/her term. This may not facilitate workable, reasonable and
> productive Executive meetings and the board and the group could
> suffer.
Again, once you turf the "personal vision" stuff, the organization
becomes a more cooperative entity. I definitely think it is worth a look
and should be put to a vote ... i.e. collective decision making.
As for nobody volunteering for the position of president, I personally
find that a little hard to believe. I think part of the problem now is
that people are overly polite, not overly apathetic. The politeness
factor might weigh in when someone wants to throw their hat in against
an existing incumbent, but demurs for any number of reasons.
If there is a one year limit, politeness or what ever reason needn't be
a factor. The incumbent(s) term(s) is/are over. It's somebody else's
turn now. No hard feelings, less politics, more FOSS/Linux.
....and in the possibly rare event that nobody throws their hat in,
there would still be an opportunity to change the bylaws.
There's _always_ that option.
In the end, I think it's bold, but very in keeping with the rest of the
FOSS/Linux philosophy.
My $0.02
Marcel
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
**Please remove these lines when replying
