From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Mar 31 13:01:38 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx46X-0003GT-3i for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:01:37 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100331200127.SQNA7060.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:01:27 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.225.124]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id zw1R1d00S2hfrC602w1RWY; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:01:26 -0400 X-VR-Score: -140.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=cs6kSf+HHnKg3LeUHIN5b3vawL7XSC7SgZ9jeip75oA= c=1 sm=1 a=x02eCAk4m3EA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:17 a=xEeb3XemKnhHp2HJfCAA:9 a=1cSvSF1pitiyL8tc7w8A:7 a=6zrFazB853zROp-fudQVFbJFq0wA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=AUmqquG9frsJmE0f:21 a=uI_Aehms3PpfA5mx:21 a=lsg66w07okjF3vGJL2g+Jw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4BB3AA12.6020302@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:01:22 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: VOTE RIGHT NOW (was RE: [rdentato@gmail.com: Creation of CLL PDF and HTML version]) References: <20100330073349.GN6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100330074134.GF3000@nvg.org> <20100330170011.GS6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BB238B0.4000208@lojban.org> <20100330175115.GU6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BB2E3D1.5050102@lojban.org> <4BB3595B.7050004@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 646 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Matt Arnold wrote: > Here is my opinion. It sounds like Remo is asking permission again. > That annoys me. So his CLL would have some inaccuracies. At least we'd > have something instead of waiting forever for perfection. We have a CLL now. You have been filling orders for them for quite a while now (for which I offer much thanks). Sales seem to be at a record pace. If people are satisfied with an imperfect CLL, the draft HTML version that is on line exists. (Some may call the printed CLL to be an imperfect one, but the sales figures seem to indicate that they are a minority). I am accepting the desire that the long-posted errata be incorporated into a posted document mostly because we've taken too long to finish the byfy project which will warrant a much more significant revision. > I am not a bureaucrat. I am not interested in voting, or other forms > of permission. I understand, and I have for a while. > Here's how effective organizations work: A board of > directors puts a trusted person (a conchair) in charge, and that > person tells everyone what the imperfect-but-good-enough decision is, > right now. Then they act, right now. That works, so long as the trusted person remains trusted. I had the trust of the community for 16 odd years, and people rarely questioned me, even though I sometimes took short cuts on official procedures, most commonly by informally consulting Board members without a meeting, and considering that the approval of a majority was good enough. When Cowan and Nora were on the Board, we usually constituted a majority, so I merely had to convince them (and we didn't always agree). (The fact that I was the primary funding source, and very chinzy with money helped. Many non-profit organization leaders have to be chosen for their fundraising ability more than their leadership ability.) I became fairly skilled in consensus management. My imperfect-but-good-enough decisions were plainly not only my decisions, which cut me a lot of slack. This worked until the consensus failed. Robin, Jay, and others lost confidence in my ability to do the job, with good reason. They mounted a revolution that caused me a bit of angst for a few days, until I realized that they were right. The leader of LLG cannot be a dictator of the sort you wish he could be. For one thing, dictators tend to get deposed, usually right at the point of crisis, and LLG needs stability most precisely when things get contentious. For another, our founding was specifically because JCB had tried the dictator route, and killed the community. What we do need are lots of autonomous people who can and will be dictators of their own pet projects, while being willing to fit into the umbrella organization, and to communicate effectively what they are up to. > I understand if that's not what > you want, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if you sought other > candidates for the presidency. However, right now I'm it! Based on your history of statements regarding the functions of the Board, I am inclined to believe you are correct. You are an awesome leader of projects; you get things done, and get others to work on them. You are also knowledgeable of the ways of marketing in the 21st century. But you don't seem to like consensus-building when there is disagreement. What you described above is not how "effective organizations work". It is how many effective *projects* work. You describe an excellent way to be a project manager, who is focused on a single project. It isn't so effective for an executive who has to deal with multiple competing projects, and it can fail in volunteer organizations, where you can make decisions, but that doesn't mean that others will support and/or follow them. Philcon has been in trouble because it has had con-chairs who try to be dictators, who are not able to get people to willingly go along with their decisions. Robin has likewise turned out to be an awesome leader who gets things done and gets others to work on them. But he has some tolerance for bureaucracy, and has shown a knack for consensus building, as evidenced by his quick amendment today. I've toyed with the idea of having Robin be President as well as de facto Secretary/Treasurer, but that was what finally broke me, and Robin seems to be seriously overloaded as well, without adding another job. We should be trying to find ways to take some of the load off his back - that is what the Board's job SHOULD be. Enabling people like you and Robin to tackle the projects you want to work on, and to get them done, while holding up the umbrella that makes the projects meaningful. I've toyed with the idea of trying to come back as President (if people would even want to consider such a thing), as one way to help relieve Robin, and also relieve you of bureaucratic chores you've never really wanted. But it would have to be a very different job than I was doing before, because I no longer can be the wearer of all hats that I was then. I'm also not sure I am up to keeping the pulse of the community enough to do the job (which is probably how I failed the first time). I've also toyed with the idea of asking for the byfy jatna job, except that I know that I have no credibility for being able to get any byfy work done at all. I suspect that we need to change the approach of the byfy project somewhat, if it is ever to be completed, and I might have some ideas I could implement and get others to accomplish (since I don't seem to get anything done by myself). Finally, we may need to use some sort of massive bylaw amendment to significantly change the way we are allowed to do business, and thus the sort of hats that the leadership has to wear. But I think I will wait for Robin's essay, which sounds like it will be highly relevant, before I contemplate anything else. > This was what I had to say: Boards of Directors and voting > organizations are counter-productive to their own goals. I disagree, because I think you are wrong about what the goals are. The goals of LLG aren't (and cannot be) identical to the sum of the current goals of the individuals of the user community, and especially not merely the current goals of the individuals of the activist community, which by its nature is biased towards doing something new and different. We are the "institutional memory" of the community, as well as the fundraisers and the ones who take care of legalities. And we are focused on the long term, sometimes at the cost of what gets done "now". I'll stop now. I really want to hear what Robin has to say, whenever he finds himself with the time to say it. I don't think we are near any sort of crisis, except insofar as Robin seems to have hit his limit. lojbab