[svlug] Bickering - solution

[Jason Shupe]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 04:57:27PM -0200, Paul Reiber wrote:
> Greetings from Brazil, and Happy Holidays!

Greetings & Happy Holidays!
 
> I concur w/ Edward that things have GOT to change, if SVLUG is to
> survive and thrive.

Everyone can probably agree that things need to change, but where we
disagree is where and what the changes should be.
 
> We tried the "whoever shows up for the governance meeting can define
> SVLUG" approach, and with that model, we couldn't even agree on _one
> sentence_ as a group, in over 2 hours.

I wasn't there, but I can't say that this is entirely surprising.  I was
once part of a group working on a draft mission statement for a large
company and we probably averaged 1 sentence an hour, and there were only
two people who displayed open hostility in the group.
 
> With that in mind, I've decided I need, and therefore I'm creating, an
> "advisory council" - input from random members is valuable, but input
> from a select set of advisors will be much more valuable.
> 
> Here are the details I've worked out so far:
> 
> ANY member of SVLUG can apply for a seat on this council.  (Join &)
> email the volunteers list with the reasons you'd like to be on this
> council, and list your qualifications.
> 
> I'll work with a small handful of others to select the council members
> in January when I return.
> We?ll ensure that each member is indeed on board to assist SVLUG as an
> advisor, and then we'll share the list with the rest of SVLUG.

I can't say I have much hope for this solution resolving anything.  I
see it as just furthering the status quo.  With this approach I believe
that only the interests of the current administration will be addressed,
and that the interests of those who would like a different kind of
leadership or different leadership will not be properly addressed.

I see the current administration as power hungry and one that enjoys
wielding power.  Where my desires of the officers of SVLUG would be to
act in a service to the community role rather than in a power over the
community role.

My ideal view of the role of officers (and volunteers for that matter)
is to provide...

* event organization (coordinate scheduling, location, announcements).
* consensus building (acting as a sounding board to the community -
                      "I think I hear that SVLUG membership feels this
                      way...  Is that true?").
* cheer leading (Generally upbeat tone, thanking folks for positive
                contributions(on or off list), providing constructive
                feedback offlist or in private, refraining from any form
                of negative feedback onlist or in public, refusing to
                engage or otherwise publicly respond to any negative
                behavior).

Of the lists I currently subscribe to the best model I can point to is
UUASC (Unix Users of Southern California - a joint Los Angeles and
Orange County user group).  UUASC isn't without noise, but Hershel Remer
has done a good job of maintaining good list tone and fairly good signal
to noise on a large list.  He's a man of the cloth (a Rabbi), so that
could explain some of his benevolence and his positive welcoming
nature.  He's apparently gained a life term as UUASC president or so his
web page suggests:

  http://rabbs.com/exec_dir.html

To close, please allow me to summarize my position:

  Any semblance of lasting peace in this mailing list / user group must
  be rooted in a consensus based adoption of rules of governance, where
  everyone gets to say their piece while practicing the principles of
  non violent communication, and where no decision is made until
  consensus is reached.

  Some third party with successful User group leadership experience and
  mediation experience should coordinate said process and report back to
  the main mailing list the minutes or summarized minutes of each
  meeting. (issue X, n dissenting views - sub group will meet before our
  next meeting to work on issue X and present any progress then, issue Y
  consensus reached, etc).

  This will take dozens of meetings, and no less than 3 months.

  Anything short of the above will ultimately result in a smaller (less
  erudite) mailing list/user group, with a lower total knowledge, and
  lower ability to make positive contributions to FOSS in the Bay Area
  and in the World.

Regards,
Jason