Do we want an elected executive committee?

[hidyverse]

Elected being the undecided factor, do we want to create the necessary documentation to vote and govern an executive committee? In our current governance, the executive committee oversees creation of ad-hoc and standing committees.

[hidyverse]

All of the remaining [TODO]s pertain to a currently-non-existent elected executive committee.

[alex-r-bigelow]

I'm absolutely in favor of an elected committee in theory, however in practice I worry that few in our community would actually want the position. If elections are the only mechanism by which the executive committee is formed, odds feel high that the committee will be left vacant.

I don't love the only idea that I've come up with... along the lines of "if you attend more than X number of Hacky Hours in Y months, you're auto-nominated for the executive committee election," but I feel like (if elections are how we want it to work) we need SOME kind of backup mechanisms in the governance doc to increase the likelihood that there will be people to vote for in the first place?

Put another way, if each of us Drafting Task Force^TM people suddenly disappeared from the community, are there ways to increase the likelihood that it still has some kind of leadership without us?

In terms of carrots, we don't exactly have money to offer... and a free monthly beer out of the collected funds feels inappropriate*. What's the absolute sexiest line on a CV that we can offer? If we want elections at all (nevermind competitive ones), "Executive Committee Member" feels nice, but maybe we can do better?

Anyone have other ideas that we could put in the governance doc to motivate people to actually want the job, beyond a line on a CV, external institutional arm-twisting, or a vague sense of duty toward a group of friends / a community that helped me publish a paper once?

* ^{...I'm NOT trying find a way to create a system that indirectly enables my alcoholism via a certain academic donor institution, what are you talking about...}

[julianpistorius]

I agree with @alex-r-bigelow's concerns. It's important for leadership to be accountable to the community, but I feel hesitant about introducing the machinery, overhead, and incentives that come with elections.

I believe that at the level of our various events and projects (Hacky Hour, Coffee & Code, Festival) we currently operate on 'do-ocratic' principles (as opposed to democracy):

Do-ocracy typically evolves spontaneously in groups where:

• Stakes are low. Typically, if job X or task Y didn’t get done, or got done poorly, it’s not a life-or-death situation.
• Authority is non-coercive.
• Work is plentiful. There are lots of jobs to do, and lots of people to do them.
• Effort is rewarded with recognition.
• Culture of participation. Each member of the community feels a right and a duty to take on responsibilities.

I think this has worked well for us. The structure we decide to add should be as light-weight as possible and in harmony with our our existing 'do-ocratic' culture. It should effectively address the needs of the community (within the scope of our mission), while avoiding unnecessary burden on executive committee members.

My proposal: Each standing committee appoints their own delegates to the executive committee. Then the members of the executive committee can vote internally on specific roles like chair, deputy, treasurer, etc.

For example an initial six-member executive committee could consist of two delegates from each of Hacky Hour, Coffee & Code, and the Festival.

Thus the executive committee executive committee does NOT oversee the creation of standing committees. Instead motivated community members who see a need (that fits within our mission) and have a plan to address it, can start their own effort and rally like-minded volunteers around them. This will enable them to gain representation on the executive committee if they want it.

I think this should address most of @alex-r-bigelow's concerns, while keeping the executive committee accountable to the sub-communities who grant them specific and defined executive powers.

[val-pf]

I agree with @alex-r-bigelow. I honestly don't believe in 'elections' as a viable mechanism for ResBaz Governance right now. I believe that adding this will create a burden and barrier for the community in its current shape. As @alex-r-bigelow points out, the role of doing anything in the community is currently perceived as a burden, not a privilege to most. Until we can restructure that and create enough incentives to make community engagement attractive, I would not want to pose a voting burden on the community. Determining basic questions, like who can vote, who will actually vote, that all seems too complicated for the current community structure. (This does not mean that it won't be something to consider further down the road)

I like what @julianpistorius described about Do-ocracy, that seems exactly like what we are doing right now, and it seems feasible to me to have one-to-two representative from Hacky Hour, Coffee & Code, and the Festival join a committee, with the caveat that Hacky Hour and Coffee & Code have a fairly large overlap of their attendees. Going back to the incentive structure, it seems that a clearly defined task with a measurable outcome, like "a festival" is more incentivizing to people that being 'a committee member'. So: What would the executive committee actually "do"? Deal with problems? Wouldn't that be something that instead, the one-to-two representatives of the respective event should/could deal with in most cases?

I could see the function of the executive committee more in things like negotiating with sponsors or to giving the organization a 'face', but that could still be done by any representative(s) of Hacky Hour, Coffee & Code, or the festival. Functionally, isn't self-regulation of the active communities under the ResBaz-umbrella the currently most desirable and democratic way of doing things?

Sorry I don't have answers, just thoughts to add at this point.

[val-pf]

Let me add, maybe we can start with the representatives of Hacky Hour, Coffee & Code, and Festival (self-select and approved/ not vetoed by peers) and then create a way for how, if the need arises, an executive committee composed of these three groups of representatives could initiate a bigger governance entity in the future.

[julianpistorius]

Good questions @val-pf.

Functionally, isn't self-regulation of the active communities under the ResBaz-umbrella the currently most desirable and democratic way of doing things?

Yes! Definitely. I think that as much as possible should be handled by the communities themselves.

So what's left? I envisage coordination and activities which don't fit into the purview of the events/communities.

For some examples check out the notes from a brainstorming session where we identified possible areas we wanted to put more effort into: https://github.com/resbazaz/2019-11-25-brainstorming

It could include things like:

• Control of GitHub, email, Meetup, Slack, and other accounts
• Ownership of domain names
• Ownership and secure storage of festival attendance records, feedback, membership data, etc.
• Control over money (Open Collective)
• Authority to negotiate contracts on behalf of the community
• Central point of contact
• Documentation of processes
• Conflict resolution
• Ensuring succession of key people
• Strategic planning
• Guiding the evolution of our vision & mission

These are just the first things that popped into my head. I'm sure there are other important responsibilities we can think of.

Relieving the burden on executive committee members is one clear benefit I see in devolving power to, and encouraging autonomous, self-organizing communities. Before taking on any responsibility, the executive committee should probably ask themselves: Is this really something that we should manage, or does it make more sense for the community itself to handle it?

[val-pf]

This is very helpful @julianpistorius! So how would we envision the executive committee to tackle these tasks? As they arise (read as: become too big to ignore) or should there be a weekly/biweekly/monthly/quarterly meeting that they attend where community members can bring forward issues/ideas? Like a community townhall?

I am trying to make the committee tasks and operations more concrete to see how we would best realize it.

[julianpistorius]

Good question @val-pf. I am not sure.

I do believe that it is vital that the process is as transparent and inclusive as possible. This includes defaulting to asynchronous, written communication unless there is a very good reason not to.

For example we could record & automatically transcribe any in-person/video meetings, use GitHub to allow community members to make suggestions and discuss issues (not unlike we're practicing here!), archive meeting notes on the wiki, use a GitHub voting app, etc.

[julianpistorius]

When should communication NOT be public? Inspiration from Apache Software Foundation:

Balancing confidentiality and public discussion

We endeavour to conduct as much discussion in public as possible. This encourages openness, provides a public record, and stimulates the broader community.

However sometimes internal private mail lists are necessary. You must never divulge information from such a list in public without the express permission of the list. Also never copy an email between private and public lists (no Cc). Such an event would go beyond the normal need for email etiquette and would be a serious breach of confidence. It could have serious ramifications, causing unnecessary confusion and ill-informed discussion.

Private lists are typically only used for matters pertaining to people as individuals (like voting in new committers), and legal matters that require confidentiality.

[julianpistorius]

Any objections? Suggestions? @alex-r-bigelow, @hidyverse, @val-pf, @lossanna, and @bjoyce3

Who wants to have a go at rewriting parts of the document dealing with this?

[hidyverse]

Hello!! Thank you for the conversation, team.

While I don't love the downfalls (read dangers) of doOcracy, most importantly, social exclusion, and I don't agree that ResBaz's current organization is working or that the doOcracy as a governance aligns with our mission (at least the community aspect) as it's written today...I do not come with solutions to the burden emphasized by above comments. 😅

Seeing no future objection or suggestion, I volunteer to move forward updating the executive committee language throughout and drafting other items per this discussion. I plan to have these updates completed by 06/29 (which puts us slightly behind our goal timeline - please advise if this is an issue).

[hidyverse]

Did I add these updates to the wrong branch? I can make a PR but i'm afraid this branch (goverance-draft) is behind, creating conflict.

[julianpistorius]

Not sure what's up. I'll have a look. Thank you @hidyverse!

[julianpistorius]

@hidyverse No, you did everything right. You made your changes to the governance-draft branch, which is correct. I've reopened your PR, and have resolved the conflicts.

[hidyverse]

I just need a bit more practice at resolving conflict - that was scary! 😆

[hidyverse]

Closing this issue with #26