[IAEP] [SLOBS] Motions A & B for Tomorrow

[Walter Bender]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> On 3 June 2016 at 07:54, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
> >> On 2 June 2016 at 11:27, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Or is the intention to *add* another person separate from any concrete
> >>> goals within the organization some unilateral spending privileges?  If
> the
> >>> latter, what problem are we solving?
> >>
> >> The recent domain renewal is a great case study about why we want to add
> >> another person separate from any concrete goals; that person acts as a
> >> 'catch all' or 'back stop' to solve the problem that there is a small
> >> expense that needs to be covered quickly but without a formally
> structured
> >> role in place it isn't clear who can approve the spending.
> >
> > This example is broken. Bernie in fact is the one whom should have been
> > approached as head of the infrastructure team and he could have approved
> the
> > spending unilaterally.
>
> And yet, despite Seb being a contributor for many years, and me being
> somewhat familiar with the idea that Bernie can spend unilaterally,
> that didn't happen.
>

Would be good to understand why. Not clear that it has anything to do with
formal vs informal or structure or lack of structure. Perhaps lack of
documentation? Also, it is not clear that this is a persistent or systemic
problem. But again, I am convinced by your passion that we should try
something new.

>
> For myself, I didn't approach Bernie because I understood his
> unilateral spending authority to be limited to thing he needs to do to
> keep the servers running, and since Seb has the domain registered
> himself, it seemed a little bit far from Bernie's remit.
>
> I also note that Seb posted to the community lists about this, and
> no-one, including yourself, replied to say "Bernie can do this" CC'ing
> him.
>
> Without formally structured roles, we rely on informal structures,
> which are inherently subjective and ambiguous. The example appears
> broken to you now because in your subjective perspective Bernie is
> authorized to renew the domain, but the observed reality is that his
> authority was not exercised and this is a failure of the informal
> structure. A formal structure might succeed :)
>
> > But I cry "uncle"
>
> lol :)
>
> >> If you still find yourself puzzled by the motivations for more
> structure,
> >> I recommend a close reading of
> http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm -
> >> I found it very enlightening as to the problems inherent in
> >> flat/distributed/self-empowered organizations :)
> >
> > I am puzzled and will read the article before the meeting.
>
> :D
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160603/b31b306d/attachment.html>