A question for long term DMS members

[michaelb]

I don’t see the argument for someone to be put in a leadership position without being technically competent in that area.

I don’t think this stops us from empowering anyone to lead, either. It just means they might have to put forth the effort to learn before they’re allowed to lead.

Personally, that summary was pretty much what I was expecting when I joined.

[Draco]

One of the reasons why the Valve system works is really two fold. This is what they credit with their success.

One, the hiring process. Being choosy on who gets to work at valve. We could have a hiring process for volunteers but this would require a bit of a mindset change.

All of this pales in comparison to Valve’s hiring process and the emphasis they put on it. They see every employee’s most important role as hiring. They go as far as to say “Hiring is more important than breathing”. Valve rates applicants on three questions,

• Would I want this person to be my boss?
• Would I learn a significant amount from him or her?
• What if this person went to work for our competition?

Two, the keeping of company culture. People that do not share that culture of collaboration and all the other aspects, are not kept at Valve. They have to work well together, be creative and smart to work at Valve.

Valve’s culture and is built on the premise that there are no managers, with each member of staff able to choose the project he or she is working on. The handbook is subtitled: “A fearless adventure in knowing what to do when no one’s there telling you what to do.”

[ESmith]

I would argue that the overall goal of DMS is to be effective. There are many routes to effectiveness, but lacking the more powerful carrots and sticks of employment we should adopt a degree of flexibility in our approach.

@Draco

The chair should be the organizer of the committee. The one that can set meeting times and make sure proper procedure is carried out. But the majority of the work should be done by committee members They should be free enough to come up with ideas and be heard. They can then lead that project under the committee. I think committees could then create job positions, that later can be filled by someone else.

This is not a bad model, but I don’t believe it’s a universal model either. Some committees may organize themselves as such due to the personalities of the Chair and other members. But some may end up relying on the Chair and whoever can be rounded up to get things done. The benevolent dictator may not be the preferred ideal - especially if they drive possible volunteers away - but sometimes the facts on the ground will not support a participative model.

Also, realpolitik, the number of members interested in volunteering is a fraction of the overall membership. Allowing a sense of ownership over solutions is a way to encourage investment and commitment - especially if our ideal participative model doesn’t work for them. I’m going to hazard a guess that there are a lot of DMS members with introverted tendencies who may not relish committee meetings, group workdays, etc, but are quite willing to engage in the individual contributor mode whenever they see a need or unmet opportunity.

[lukeiamyourfather]

@bertberaht

Did “committees run things” become a thing after the benevolent dictator era went away or has that been a concept for a longer time frame?

Some committees operated under benevolent dictatorship model and others didn’t. It depended on several factors including what the chairperson wanted.

@bertberaht

And from whenever “committees run things” became the business model, where is the BoD role in this?

The board changed the rules at some point along the way about how committees operate. A huge mistake in my opinion if that wasn’t already abundantly clear.

@bertberaht

I know they authorize the Chairs after committee elections and can apparently reject a winning candidate or even remove one later down the road.

The board appoints chairpersons per the bylaws. Full stop. The elections aren’t binding but they’ve been treated as such. This could easily change

@bertberaht

Is this sorta like the BoD is the holding company and the committees are subsidiary “businesses” (to take a model from the business world) or is it something very different?

Somewhere between that and departments. There are aspects from both.

@bertberaht

In browsing the Wiki, I see some dated reports of Member Meeting where departments appear to have made reports, etc. Haven’t been to anything like that in my 13-14 months, so maybe I missed them or don’t they happen anymore?

Most committees are terrible at record keeping and always have been. This wasn’t an issue years ago because the record was whatever the benevolent dictator did. There was nothing to vote on.

@shoottx

That would solve a lot of problems, but reduce the membership substanially.

The challenge of a volunteer run makerspace is a simple equation, the time spent on DMS activites reduces the time available to work on one’s own projects. Many of the improvement suggested, needed or anticipated are trading one’s project time for the good of the organization.

I’m referring to the management of the organization. Not the members. I realize members manage it but we can decide which members manage it. I made that trade and I’m happy I did. I would do it again if there was an appropriate opportunity to do so.

@Haley_Moore

If we believed the world should run solely on meritocracy, there wouldn’t be a Dallas Makerspace. We are about empowering anyone to create, learn - and yes, to lead.

Sure, anyone who walks in the door could be the best chairperson or director or volunteer we’ve ever had. That doesn’t mean we should let people who perform awfully do so indefinitely just because they’re popular.

@Haley_Moore

Also…real talk, that summary doesn’t really make Netflix sound like a good place to work. I definitely wouldn’t pay $50/mo to be there.

If I could pay $50 a month to learn all about Netflix, talk to anyone there, see all the inner workings, hell yes I would pay that to do it. Like they said, it’s not for everyone.

@Draco

I have noticed a few things while keeping a tally on this committee election. Very very few committees have more than one candidate running. Many of them run because no one else will do it.

Gee, I wonder why. It couldn’t possibly be because all of their authority and autonomy was taken away. I’m shocked we have any chairpersons running with the way things are now.

@Draco

This is the reason that we need strong committees. This is to spread the load. The chair should be the organizer of the committee.

I completely agree and they can do that however they see fit. People don’t volunteer because they get a vote. I’ve volunteered to help many committees that were run by benevolent dictators because I supported what they were doing and wanted to help. I’m not convinced by your logic.

@Draco

Instead of the Netflix model … what about the Valve model?

I’m not as familiar with Valve but I’ll look into it.