Software Development Committee who would elect a new chair,
That in itself is the contradiction from the discussion between the board, Coul and myself.
The board members at that discussion has pointed out that changing the name of a committee does not require a change in chairs and I would hope that this fact is not lost in politics after all what about when Welcoming Committee was voted to Public Relations Committee or Operation and Facilities Committee?
does not require
Nor does it - in any way - rule out a change in chairs.
Which, if the meeting notes are accurate (still seeking confirmation from you and @Coul on this), is what a group of people decided by mutual agreement at last night’s meeting.
Please tell me that decision was not overridden by a hallway discussion?
hallway discussion
In all honest I attended that meeting to be excellent to our membership and even offered a middle ground for an option. I don’t like back door politics as much as the rest of us even if there was a lot of hallway meetings of others going on at the time.
Despite obviously the wrong naming of the committee and several attempts to reach out no only to Coul prior to appointment as chair to work together we are now faced with this situation.
To be clear, at this point the item is now being put before the board and I do welcome further discussion here but the facts are for two years now VCC has been the software committee, we started out as a software sig with two years now of javascript, python and IT classes at the space.
If we’re wanting to change the chairs then where was anyone’s name for when VCC had its last chair voting? I’m more than will to work with everyone and above all the vice chair seat is still open as I proposed prior but in the end of the day we need to focus not on the politics but on what makes DMS better as a whole.
Answer: At the time it was a vintage computing group.
That said, my question still stands unanswered: What did last night’s group decide, Dwight?
If they did indeed decide to form a NEW committee and call for election of a chair, no one person in disagreement should override the mutual agreement of the many and post a board item contradicting that decision.
@denzuko. You are mixing 2 different things.
VCC is great. 2 of my devices have been on display in the museum. I’ve had honorariums from some of the classes I taught go to fund the committee.
You have taught several software classes. You and VCC are not the same thing, though you are the driving force for it. Many of us have taught software classes, under various umbrellas.
The discussion this week had 20 people meet. Nothing was voted on yet. There will be a vote. I am glad you are running for chair.
If you want to remake VCC, that should also be discussed. You are wanting more than a name change. You want to ditch it and move on to something else.
Dwight, I’m at a complete loss to understand what you’re asserting in this thread.
Your proposal to have VCC renamed and repurposed as the SD committee was shot down by the people in attendance.
Absolutely no one other than you either suggested or wanted it.
By the people in attendance, the decision was made to give more than one days notice to the Members of the Makerspace to discuss it. And we set a meeting for the larger group on Tuesday, December 5th.
I’m at a complete loss as to why you would so willfully mispresent what was said and done.
Please stop this immediately. We’re meeting on December 5th, and if you want to run for committee chairman then, feel free to do so.
Kirk Keeter
For the record, the Board of Directors has no official position on the number of committees. Individual directors may have an opinion, but weigh that as such.
The Board should reflect the will of the members. It is up to us to drive consensus, not us following their will.
“ditch it and move on”
This is not what was discussed before, doing, or after the meeting. In any situation VCC is not going anywhere.
There will be a vote. I am glad you are running for chair.
While I know most of the classes I’ve taught have been under VCC since the founding of the committee and that we over all have not needed nor applied for honorariums in the past for our classes because we had not needed the funding. I will say that I’m glad there is a vote as well and even if I’m a bit of a bull dog at times overall welcome what ever comes as a decision and would push forward with efforts to provide Software and IT education to not just the space but to the DFW area along with the STEM and Professional Certification programs since at the end of the day its more about making a better makerspace and community in our area than anything else.
This is what I took away from the meeting…
Software Development currently has at least three homes: Vintage Computer, Infrastructure, Digital Media.
The official home is Digital Media.
@Coul believes the time has come for Software Development to be a new committee. The people in attendance were in strong agreement.
The plan is to propose forming a new committee and removing Software Development from Digital Media at the next board meeting (Sunday). The people in attendance were in strong agreement.
@denzuko suggested reforming Vintage Computer into Software Development. I see this suggestion as a difference without distinction. The end result is the same: a new committee is formed for Software Development.
If the new committee is formed the first meeting is to occur in early December. A chair is to be selected at that time. The people in attendance were in strong agreement.
I believe @Coul nominated someone for chair (Humdan Bakhshi?)
@denzuko advocated for himself as chair given the depth and breadth of the software classes that have been taught under the umbrella of Vintage Computer.
Anything else discussed was after the meeting had adjourned.
Some personal observations…
I agree with @Coul that we need a new separate committee for Software Development. The means by how that is achieved is irrelevant to me.
Regardless of which other committees have a hand in software development Digital Media is the current official home. Which means any decisions are @Coul’s (or the Board’s).
I believe there has to be a vote for chair. There were several teachers in the meeting who had no idea classes were being taught under Vintage Computer; they assumed Infrastructure was the hosting committee. As teachers they should have a say in who leads them.
Assuming I have the time and the Board agrees to form a new committee I intended to join. But only if I can vote for chair.
Despite @denzuko deviating from the plan I intend to vote for him as chair.
Brian - Thank you for the detailed notes. This is exactly the level of clarification for which I was asking. It matches what two others have told me off-line. Good to have it on the record, especially from a supprter of Dwight’s.
@denzuko - you need to change the wording of your BoD agenda item to reflect the meeting decisions. I look forward to reading the new proposal tomorrow, as well as your platform & qualifications for your run as Software Dev chair.
I could not make the meeting because I had something else scheduled at the time. But the “meeting” sort of came to me. A director with whom I often have long conversations came by as I was packing up. Because he would spend a lot of time in the big Common Room, I asked how the software development meeting went. He did not know particulars, but he was very amused about the name. Around that time, Dwight came by and the “meeting” continued.
Dwight explained that by changing the scope of the Vintage Computer Committee, it would be easier to get a new one accepted. In the past, the directors created committees only when there is a need to allocate space or if a group needed to handle money. The main reason is that additional committees makes the job of the Finance committee harder.
Another director came by and we discussed this some more along with other issues about The Space.
I had a discussion with Coul later that night. He told me he just wants software development out of Digital Media.
Anyway, here is my take on the situation:
Several committees currently claim software development. Electronics because of the embedded microcontrollers connection. Digital Media because it is a set of bits on a storage device. Vintage computers. Science because of the term “computer science.” And finally, Infrastructure because it is actively developing and maintaining software in use.
Electronics has a good case. Many colleges put computer science in with electrical engineering, though some used to associate it with math. Many of the programming classes have been associated with Electronics.
The Digital Media claim is dubious at best as they have offered probably fewer classes on software development than the others other than Infrastructure. I do not get why some think Digital Media currently owns software development; just because it is listed that way on the wiki? So does Science.
Vintage Computer has a natural claim except when it comes to modern technologies.
The Science Committee claim initially seems to be a stretch, but look at the calendar for the next week. A majority of programming and related classes are by a Science member, whether it is Python, Processing, Arduino, BASH or MATLAB.
Infrastructure because of active software development and maintenance.
The term “sponsoring committee” is a misnomer. “Beneficiary committee” may be more accurate as an instructor may designate any committee to receive honorarium money. Unless a class requires using the tools or space of a particular committee, the chair need not even be aware of the class.
Software development is a very broad topic. A committee will have difficulty with focus much as the Science Committee has. I am not sure a single committee is better than separate parts affiliated with existing committees.
Maybe more discussion is needed before any action is taken. This thing seems to be very rushed.
Who is that?
It actually has a fourth; Electronics. Embedded development is a very popular activity at DMS.
While I have no dog in this hunt I would suggest that we avoid a turf issue that occurred when I first joined.
I was asked to teach a class on basic still photography lighting. I submitted (and got approval) for the class with the honorarium going to Creative Arts. The then chair of Digital Media had a fit that DM wasn’t getting the honorarium. There was discussion and the CA chair was fine with DM getting the honorarium. However, as the teacher I wasn’t. I canceled the class and held it where no one got the honorarium.
The point is that software development is a part of much of the art of making today, and a single committee is not going to dictate that activity for every body. Some will continue to perform that activity for VCC (for instance @Bill and his 6502 python) and for Electronics (@Bill, @Microrustyc, and Jim).
Fighting about who and what before the committee is even formed doesn’t bode well.
Now on an unrelated note, I have a question for those who want a committee instead of a SIG.
The only thing a Committee offers that a SIG doesn’t is the ability to claim space and directly spend money. What is this proposed committee’s intent in those two area?
Sorry for the delay guys, this is my first chance to post.
@heyheymama I wanted the others to also see what I have to say on the subject, so I posted my reply here: Software Development Committee - Initial Meeting
Thank you @Brian for clarifying for the record. You’re awesome!
@denzuko You made mention that you have made several attempts to reach out to me. This statement brings my character into question. Before Tuesday’s meeting, you and I have only met once. By meeting, I am referring to introductions of names, not a discussion of agendas. Before that introduction, there was only one request to meet which was in my post on my “Vision for Digital Media” which stated: “If your on discord or google+ then please ping me and lets see how we can help each other out.”.
I replied to you via PM and stated:
We definitely have committee overlap and I look forward to working with you on future projects. I have discord and google+, but don’t check them often. The best place to reach me is either here or via email cl@c**o
Next time we see each other at the space, we should take a few minutes for introductions.
If you have other attempts of reaching out to me via my email that was provided, a PM on talk, or any other form of communication, please post them here and I will apologize for my neglect. If you can not provide these “several attempts” in which you refer, I am requesting a formal apology in response to your liable claim.
One would hope that we could understand where I’m coming from in that its not a reforming of Vintage Computer Committee into a new direction or committee just a rename of the committee as VCC already been the “new committee” we’re discussing for a few years now. Ultimately, a four hour posting on talk date the last moment followed by complete dismissal of any input usually does not warrant a lot of warm hearted response from anyone especially after already reaching out before the change of committee leads to discuss this very same matter a head of time.
I’ve always welcomed every one to attend and contribute to VCC especially in software and IT aspects. Let alone worked on cross committee collaboration. The 'vintage or retro" aspect has been a committee project from day one known as Interactive Computer Museum (ie ICM) and not the sole reason for the committee.
New Committee or not; VCC is still hosting the DMS Development Priority Meeting this month for the space’s internal development, along with the Network+, CTF/Infosec, Python, and JavaScript classes going forward into the next quarter. We have a tensorflow cluster already in the committee area with the sign up sheet at VCC Computer Community Grid Signup Sheet with tensorflow classes going up after the holidays.
We’ll still be hosting TED style talks at UTD for DevOps, InfoSec, and as an open form for the membership to present their projects to a larger audience along with the YouTube channel as part our on going efforts towards the committee’s Code Slinger project.
Furthermore, volunteer postings are going up on talk and new Digital version of the old Jobline board that VCC is developing for PR and Infrastructure.
That said, yes the membership should get a chance to vote and have their say. I welcome it and will speak with the board for a little guidance tonight and even see if we can table the name change until the next BoD meeting. I also invite everyone to come out to the next Committee meeting.
Unless you held the class in the Digital Media room or used their equipment, the chair of DM had no say. I would have told him to go film himself…
That was less clear at the time.
Just withdraw your agenda item and post on next month’s agenda. As long as outside the 48 hrs, it won’t even show up.
agreed
I think this debate is less about turf war and more about whether or not the chair of the proposed committee should be voted on or placed by default.
I am truly impartial how the new committee is formed, only that, if formed a chair be elected in by its members.
Walter, sorry you had that experience. Digital Media is currently working on new classes on 9 different subject matters and looking for more. A class on basic still photography lighting would be huge for DMS as many of our members have product shots they would like to capture. If you are willing to teach a class on this subject, I don’t care where the honorarium goes, that’s entirely your business. My primary goal as chair is that more Digital Media classes be taught, not to attempt to strong-arm members for their honorariums. I just ask that you please reconsider teaching your class and let me know any way I can help with this.
It is my understanding that the purpose of a committee is for space OR finance, not AND. Please verify this.
Our purpose is for financial so we may promote hackathons and have prize money, pay to have lecturers come give talks, purchase development platforms, etc.
We live in a virtual space and can reserve rooms for our meetings, so space at DMS is not an issue.
The elections are essentially irrelevent. Chairs are appointed by the board. They usually accept the vote, but not always.
BTW, not sure prize money will be an acceptible use of DMS funds. Have you talked with @Photomancer about that?
Aren’t all development platforms(computers) the purvue of infrastructure?
BTW, my annecdote was relating to a chair who is no longer a member. Nothing to do with DM now. Just using it as an example of what I think may occur if we try to put software development under one umbrella. IMO, its use at DMS, is to diverse to work well that way.