Please note that given this is a complete rewrite, any proposed changes made to the original Addendum will not go into effect. If anyone is proposing to amend the Warden Addendum, you need to specify proposed changes for the current and this proposed version separately (or only for one version as need be.)
This gives us the ability to allow wardens to be more flexible and not have the one warden for one area and one area for one warden rule, and instead the wardens maintain the Hive as a whole instead of one small area.
Also, the board can expand the number of wardens to meet the Hive’s future needs.
So a few things I would like to point out here as concerns to me.
“Approved requests are purchased by the COO, and the monthly summary is presented to the Board at each Board Meeting for reimbursement to the COO.”
As a volunteer ran organization, not everyone has $250 to temporarily (assuming the board approves every warden budget) put aside to fund the Warden budget if they decide to run for COO, there should be something in here to cover the warden budget if the COO doesnt want to put up his or her own funds.
“The maximum number of Wardens may be changed at any time by an Act of the Board of Directors, and is eight (8) until such an Act is passed. Reducing the maximum number of Wardens does not cause any current Warden to be removed from a Warden position.”
Why have a set number even to start " The maximum number of Wardens is determined by a majority vote of the the Board of Directors and can be changed during any Monthly Board meeting." would work for this.
“Wardens are appointed and removed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO).”
Last year we voted in a checks and balance to this, of COO recommending and Board voting in wardens. If we are adding in wardens without areas, I feel this is needed Even more with removing specific areas this can allow for favoritism to rear its dirty head. Why was that removed?
"Each Warden is not necessarily limited to one Area, nor one Warden per Area, and cross-training of Wardens is encouraged. "
Why are we removing the area waden concept, for a more COO Assistants concept, the original idea of the warden was to have someone specific to goto for each area, for help, to report issues, to look over an area. Why remove that? I understand having a few “floating wardens,” 1 or 2 (or however many the board feels is needed) but I cant say I understand removing the idea of area specific wardens all together.
To resolve some of the issues I propose the following changes, (I am trying to figure out something proper for the Section 3 still. to take away the $250 “buy in” responsibility of the COO) If Greg wants to change it in his proposal that’s fine, if not as a bylaw change as separate votes if this Greg’s proposal is approved:
Change 1 To section 4.3: Current Proposal:
3. The maximum number of Wardens may be changed at any time by an Act of the Board of Directors, and is eight (8) until such an Act is passed. Reducing the maximum number of Wardens does not cause any current Warden to be removed from a Warden position. Proposed Change to Current Proposal:
3. The maximum number of Wardens is determined by a majority vote of the the Board of Directors and can be changed by Majority Vote of the Board of Directors at any time.
3.A. Current Wardens at the time of any change will not automatically be removed from a Warden position, unless removal is approved by Majority Vote of the Board of Directors.
Change 2. To section 4.4 to match the current warden addendum: Current Proposal:
4. Wardens are appointed and removed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO). Proposed Change to Current Proposal:
4. The COO is responsible for proposing appointments and removal of Wardens to be decided by majority vote of the Board of Directors.
Change 3. To section 5: Current Proposal:
The COO is responsible for determining the specific breakdown of the various Areas and the individual duties of each Warden. Each Warden is not necessarily limited to one Area, nor one Warden per Area, and cross-training of Wardens is encouraged.
Responsibilities of the Wardens include, but are not limited to, the following: Proposed Change to Current Proposal:
The COO is responsible for determining the specific breakdown of the various Areas and the individual duties of each Warden. Each Area should be assigned at least (but not limited to) one warden, with an additional number of Non-assigned (floating) wardens determined in conjunction with Section 4.3. Wardens may be assigned multiple areas, if needed or beneficial to the operation of Hive13 (Sadbee Inc). Responsibilities of the Wardens include, but are not limited to, the following:
Regarding Section 3: The “buy in” for the $250 is not a thing. I’m not really sure where you’re getting that from. This section has undergone very little change - the COO makes purchases and gets re-imbursed. This is the way it’s worked since inception.
Regarding Section 4.3 and why there’s a set number to start: There needs to be an original maximum number until the board can change it.
Regarding Section 4.4: The wardens are the COO’s helpers, and as such, the COO should be the one in charge of his team. The board is concerned with the Hive’s long-term issues, not what really boils down to short-term personnel issues.
Regarding Section 5: This was re-written to allow the COO to more easily determine what was an “Area” in the Hive as things like rearrangement and expansion happened. Also, there is more than one Warden people can go to for help with an area. They really are functioning as “Assistant COOs” as you put it. Several of the current Wardens are experts in more than one Area of the Hive, and this encourages that even more.
Also, please note that “Sad Bee” is two words, and your proposed change is a lot muddier but isn’t substantially different.
Daniel, I can speak to the reasoning behind the adjustment of the one warden, one area approach.
Until recently we have not had all the warden spots filled for a while. So we have kind of been passing around some of the duties. We found that some people were willing to take on some items, but were not comfortable with others.
This change allows it so the COO and the wardens have flexibility to cover all aspects of the hive, without needing to amend any any bylaws before doing so.
A few examples would be, changing the fablab warden to be just the 3D printing warden, while the cnc warden takes over the lasers, and the electronics warden taking the remaining items in the annex.
Or if we expand from just having the glass torch, to adding glass fusing and slumping, it require adding a warden or rearranging the responsibilities for the existing wardens.
Or if we decide the gigabot needs one person that just eat, sleeps, and breathes Gigabot it is possible to do this.
There are several other instances they we explored while trying to find the wardens we have now, but each of these would have required updating the warden addendum. That is the intention behind this. Since people very like don’t care who specifically is maintaining items in the hive, so long as all items are being maintained and people can find out who to go to for assistance.
Perhaps a white board / wiki page / something that documents who the wardens are, what they are responsible for and how to contact them would be a good idea and a way to bridge the warden-responsible-for-area paradigm and the wardens-are-assistant-COOs-that-do-whatever paradigm?
I can see both sides of this. I think the language Daniel has proposed is considerably more unambiguous but obviously reflects a different idea for warden roles.
I support have more flexibility in the warden department but I believe there is some ownership if a person is “responsible” for an area.
As an area warden, I check on the FabLab every time I am down and try to make sure everything is working properly and it is kind of neat.
When I “owned” the electronics area I felt responsible to keep the stuff updated and even upgraded as needed.
I’m more than happy to hand off some maintenance or upgrades to someone that has more time/energy to do some work though.
I worry that if we just have general wardens we will lose focus on areas and things will go to hell very quickly.
Perhaps not having people “assigned” to an area so they are free to work on whatever would be a great direction but still maintain some responsibility for a part of the space.
In an ideal world everyone would keep the place neat and we could just float around and maintain stuff, but I’ve found that people tend to leave areas messier and messier as time goes on.
Perhaps a video record of people leaving messes . . . .
I’ve gotten wicked busy with work and family so I’m a bit removed from daily operation of the Hive so I don’t want to push my concepts while I can’t contribute as much as I’d like.
This is just my random thoughts when I have a minute.
Per the past few warden meetings, the point has been about being able to shift that warden ownership to the available people without the herculean effort of updating the bylaws.
So hypothetically speaking, If you have to resign as fablab warden: Jeff B says he can handle all the 3D printers, but not the laser. Velsy says he can handle the lasers, since they are similar the the CNC. problem solved. Currently this is not TECHNICALLY allowed. This change to the wardens allows the COO and Wardens to agree and simply update the Area Warden wiki page with the new assignments.
I don’t see this bylaw change as eliminating a warden being assigned to an area, it simply makes it so COO and Board/Officers can be the ones who decide what the breakdown is.
I would likely still be the woodshop warden, but this bylaws change would allow me to officially be the “Woodworking and Glasswork Warden.” Clearly those responsibilities would need to be made public and accessible, but where/how doesn’t need to be in the bylaws. We will likely just update the wiki to detail who the wardens are and what each of them can help with/are responsible for.
I agree that the provision added last year that warden assignments and removals be board approved. the wording added last year “The COO is responsible for proposing appointments and removal of area wardens to be decided by majority vote of the Board of Directors.” is a bit clumsy though… I suggest that we have a vote for:
If the proposed changes to the warden addendum in amendment proposal ### are approved, replace “Wardens are appointed and removed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO)” with “Wardens shall be Appointed or Removed by an Act of the Board of Directors. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) is responsible for making appropriate recommendations to the board for Warden Appointment or Removal based on the needs of the organization.”
I failed to specifically state, I am very supportive of these changes, I think it will go a long way to making the warden program more effective, easier to manage, and scalable with the changes in membership and Hive13’s capabilities.
Even though I find Daniel’s wording rather clunky, I adamantly oppose your wording, Kevin. It basically says the COO has no authority whatsoever in naming Wardens (merely suggesting suitable candidates to the Board).
Once again, as the COO’s “staff” or “helpers”, the COO should have broad authority in determining who those helpers are, as he’ll be working with them the closest.
Greg, if you oppose making the changes in your proposal then I will have them go up for votes at the Annual meeting.
To answer your statements:
“The “buy in” for the $250 is not a thing. I’m not really sure where you’re getting that from. This section has undergone very little change - the COO makes purchases and gets re-imbursed. This is the way it’s worked since inception.”
" COO makes purchases " thats a buy in… a COO has to spend their own money for the organization.
Section 4.4 I am completely against the idea of taking a way checks and balances for the potential of an abuse of power that the Hive has voted in just last year. The wording is what was approved last year, and as clear cut as it can get. The COO nominates the board approves. (I literally copy and pasted it from the current Addendum.)
Section 5, as brad said being a warden of an area creates a responsibility to that area. I wouldn’t have voted for generic COO helpers and I dont think that would have passed and became a thing at the time the wardens became a thing, but thats my opinion.
Sad Bee vs Sadbee, ok, so we can change a that typo.
As the new addendum stands I highly recommend it be voted AGAINST. While it has some really good points (the ability to change areas, and number of wardens with board approval.) what it removes and changes is not becoming of what the warden program stood for and sets a nasty area for abuse. . It removes a respectable Checks and balances that if not there the warden system can be abused. It changes the soul of the warden program, from Area keepers to COO helpers. Even more so it add an imbalance by not allowing anyone but one person to remove Wardens. For example if the number of Wardens needs to be lowered due to financial reasons, even if the board agrees, and lowers the Warden count, the COO does not have to remove the Wardens if he/she doesnt want to.
My recommended changes fix most of them issues and allow some leeway for wardens to help in multiple areas without removing the idea of Area Wardens. I am happy to take help to reword my recommend changes if they keep the meaning they are meant to portray.
But if we think about the approval of the board for the Wardens, the checks and balances isnt meant for the Board to regularly tell the COO no. It is meant to just be another firewall to protect against corruption. If John is doing an amazing Job as the Bathroom warden, but the current COO dislikes John, and he wants to replace him with Bob, who wouldn’t be a good fit, but is drinking buddies with the COO, with Greg’s proposal NOONE can stop him. If Bob doesnt do his job as warden at all, NOONE can remove him but his drinking buddy, the COO. This can lead to a year of the warden program being in shambles because of favoritism. why risk that, when a simple nomination system can work? The vote from last year is just a watered down version of what Congress does for the Presidential Cabinet, just without the politics.
I will not make these changes, as I am opposed to them. Strongly. It reverts the so-called “respectable Checks and balances” that you proposed to be added last year despite it being fine up until then and no evidence that that had changed.
If you feel like this is a problem, you are of course welcome to campaign against it. You are also welcome to propose any modifications to this replacement. I will likewise “highly recommend it be voted AGAINST”.
Already did. I like alot of the changes made here, but I am sorry that you want to allow a way for the Warden system to be abused, but I dont agree with that and if its all or nothing then I say nothing. But as there are ways to change parts of it, even if you are not willing to work to do so, then As stated before:
I propose the following changes as INDIVIDUAL bylaw votes to the “2019 Bylaws Proposal - Rewrite Warden Addendum”
Change 1 To section 4.3: Current Proposal:
3. The maximum number of Wardens may be changed at any time by an Act of the Board of Directors, and is eight (8) until such an Act is passed. Reducing the maximum number of Wardens does not cause any current Warden to be removed from a Warden position. Proposed Change to Current Proposal:
3. The maximum number of Wardens is determined by a majority vote of the the Board of Directors and can be changed by Majority Vote of the Board of Directors at any time. The number of wardens at the time of this bylaw taking effect will eight (8)
3.A. Current Wardens at the time of any change will not automatically be removed from a Warden position, unless removal is approved by Majority Vote of the Board of Directors.
Change 2. To section 4.4 to match the current warden addendum: Current Proposal:
4. Wardens are appointed and removed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO). Proposed Change to Current Proposal:
4. The COO is responsible for proposing appointments and removal of Wardens to be decided by majority vote of the Board of Directors.
Change 3. To section 5: Current Proposal:
The COO is responsible for determining the specific breakdown of the various Areas and the individual duties of each Warden. Each Warden is not necessarily limited to one Area, nor one Warden per Area, and cross-training of Wardens is encouraged.
Responsibilities of the Wardens include, but are not limited to, the following: Proposed Change to Current Proposal:
The COO is responsible for determining the specific breakdown of the various Areas and the individual duties of each Warden. Each Area should be assigned at least (but not limited to) one warden, with an additional number of Non-assigned (floating) wardens determined in conjunction with Section 4.3. Wardens may be assigned multiple areas, if needed or beneficial to the operation of Hive13 (Sad bee Inc). Responsibilities of the Wardens include, but are not limited to, the following: