[Bob Kuczewski]

In another topic (http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89), wingspan33 wrote:

Most importantly, as approached, the idea of creating a new organization solely by way of internet interaction was and is a disaster. It was not done well and was rushed way too fast. The web site, as things began, was in no way designed (by Jack Axaopoulos) to be practical for the purpose. It was a Forum chat site - not a place to do efficient business. I now believe that the ability to hold real-time meetings is critical and it was and still is lacking.

You may be right, but so far, these forums seem to be the best tool we have without much expense or coordination (regular conference calls might be difficult to schedule, and won't come with the self-documentation that we get with forums).

So here's my question to you. What changes can be made to a forum like this to make it work? I think one thing that would help is review by more than just one person when it comes to banning. You may recall that Jack banned both you and I without any approval from the Transition Team. He did seek their approval after that fact, but that was done in a kangaroo court where neither of us could participate ... because we were already banned!! So establishing some form of due process seems pretty important.

Of course we can't forget that the people "running the show" are an important ingredient in the process as well. For example, I think if you (Scott) had stayed on as Chairman, the HGAA would have worked out differently. People do matter, and different people will give different results. I hope that I am different from Jack, and mostly I hope that people won't be afraid to speak up on this forum if they see me doing something wrong. Midcourse guidance is always helpful.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I happened to be browsing the web when I came upon an Oz Report topic from last summer (2010). Here's the link:
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20889

John Borton (going by "Thin Air Designs") posted this:

I will repeat that what I have spoken is criticism. A lie is very different.

The following is your quote:

The consensus agreed to, was to not edit, move, remove or otherwise alter the context or continuity of member communications.

That is NOT a criticism, but rather is a outright lie -- a lie that you continue to avoid and bob and weave.

Any chance you're going to finally stop dancing and just admit that it's simply not true?

JB

JB, I believe the consensus was that we would leave everything just as it was. In fact, you may remember that there was some discussion as to whether people could edit their own posts!!! We decided that we valued the history of what was said to such a high degree that we only allowed a 1-hour window for people to edit their own posts. After that hour, they were off limits even to those who posted them. So how can you justify someone else (you) coming along and removing them? That's where you violated your own sense of transparency ... and lost my respect.

So you are wrong to say that Scott is lying. Scott is saying what I believed to be correct as well.

Also, in that same topic you challenge Scott's right as Chair:

How did you get to be Chair then?

But if that's the case, then that puts your position as vice-chair under the same cloud. After all, it was Scott who selected you as his vice-chair. So how do you explain that one? If you want a review, here's the post from June 22, 2010 (http://hgaa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=64):

I've asked ThinAirDesigns (AKA, John Buton, JB and Bubbleboy) if he would be willing to be my Vice Chairman and he has accepted the position!

So if you challenged Scott's legitimacy, then you're challenging your own as well.

Let's face it, the HGAA was formed by the consent of the governed. The job of Chair was intended to help guide a group of passionate people toward a common goal - a new and better organization. Consent by the governed did not grant to you or SG the heavy-handed ability to remove posts, silence debate, or ban people from the forum. That's where you crossed the line, and yet you're too proud and stubborn to admit that you were wrong. Instead, you lash out at Scott to cover your own failings as vice chair.

I'm sorry JB, but that was a mistake. You would be a better man for admitting it, and trying to do something to fix it.

[Bob Kuczewski]

WOW, JB!! Look how wrong you can be...

I just spent a little time digging into the history, and you should read this. You'll see that it was agreed that the Chair could not only choose the vice chair, but that the vice chair would serve "at the behest of the Chair." Those were your own words, JB. You said "I support the idea of the Chair picking a Vice Chair who serves at the behest of the Chair."

Here's a complete list of the postings to that topic (at http://www.hgaa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31):

So, I opened my big mouth about getting organized and got informally "elected" as an initial Chairman for this Transition Team. However, I was not formally elected by a majority of the Founding Members or Transition Team members. Therefore, in the sake of allowing everyone the choice to put forth their own nominees for this important position, I have started this topic.

In addition, It has occurred to me that a Co-Chairperson could be a very valuable asset.

With these two goals in mind, I would first like to debate the value of having both a Chairman and Co-Chair as official elected positions for the Transition Team (maybe even two Co-Chairs).

To lend some perspective, I'm already noticing that there are a lot more of you presenting ideas that could or should be presented here than I can keep up with (I'm not the fastest typist!). So, either a good deal of patience on your end will be needed or we might want two (or more?) people handling the job.

Once a number of opinions on this have been offered, I will end debate and ask for nominees. Please begin.

Hi Scott,

How about a "vice-chair" instead of a "co-chair"?

I say that because I think it's helpful (especially at this early stage) to have just one person who makes final decisions. If that person is NOT around, then I think the "vice-chair" can make decisions in their place but still be accountable (or at least over-ridable) by the actual chair.

I also think you should pick that person just as a presidential candidate picks their running mate. You have a better sense of who you might be able to work with, and I don't think you should be saddled with someone (maybe me!!) who you might not get along with.

Also, don't worry about confirming your position. We came from nothing and we've come a long way by picking a leader that we all like and accept. I don't hear one person complaining or requesting any additional confirmation. So as far as I'm concerned, you're the guy. If anyone disagrees, please speak up.

2nd the vice-chair. Having a hierarchy makes it clear who should do something when both people are around

2nd the vice-chair. Having a hierarchy makes it clear who should do something when both people are around

Does that 2nd include allowing the chair to pick (and even replace) their vice chair? I think this is very important because we don't want a power struggle between those two such that the vice chair "changes the furniture" every time the chair is away. I think we want the vice chair to do exactly what the chair would have wanted and that is best accomplished by giving the chair the right to appoint and replace the vice chair as desired. If we trust the chair, then we'll trust their decisions for vice chair.

Also, it's only for a few weeks at this point, and we can't waste time and energy on another election!!

I'll go along with the Vice-Chair idea as opposed to the Co-Chair.

There are times (even a day or two at a time) when I'm not on line. And while I wish I could, I can't currently afford one of those I-Phone thingies so that I'm online 24/7 - no matter where I am. Therefore, a Vice-Chair can/will be an important position to have available.

I'm most likely to be away on weekends visiting my GF who has no at-home internet access. That doesn't stop me from getting on line completely, but it's a bit of a pain in the butt. So, I'd prefer a Vice Chair who can handle weekends without a problem. I'd like to hear from a volunteer (or 2 or 3) who can cover my gaps.

Also, I would like to hear a few more responses regarding whether a formal election for this position is or is not necessary. In a way, a small cliche inevitably starts the ball rolling, so informality is almost guaranteed. I'm okay with that but want to acknowledge that I got this job mainly on the whim of 6-8 people. The majority of the Transition Team (at least) should have a right to vote on who's doing this job.

Enough for now.

Major point - List of volunteers for Vice-Chair who can easily cover weekends (or has a 24/7 I-Phone thingie )

Just as an observation ...

The Transition Team was chosen to be people who will visit regularly. We've also got some people (like Ryan) who aren't afraid to speak out if they feel something isn't being done properly (yet another great reason to have Ryan on the team). I haven't heard a peep from anyone complaining about who's in charge or about allowing you to pick a vice-chair to sit in for you while you're gone. That vice chair will be a substitute for you and will be accountable to you. If you wanted to pick anyone on the team I would not object because that's your choice and it only reflects on you.

In fact, the formality of a "vice chair" could be as simple as "I'm going away for the weekend, and Ryan can sit in for me until Monday". Done.

We'll have to do better than that for our permanent leadership, but I think that will work fine for the next 2.x weeks.

I think you've got a handle on things Bob. The thing is, if I choose somebody who can't cover things while I'm away, then what good are they serving?

Perhaps I can PM a couple/few Trans Team members over on HG.Org and ask if they can cover weekends. That might be the best approach. But then, they might see me coming and run!

I think you've got a handle on things Bob. The thing is, if I choose somebody who can't cover things while I'm away, then what good are they serving?

Perhaps I can PM a couple/few Trans Team members over on HG.Org and ask if they can cover weekends. That might be the best approach. But then, they might see me coming and run!

I think that's a fine idea. Really, you should pick whoever YOU feel will carry on for YOU while you're gone. If they do something we don't like, we're going to blame YOU anyway. That's called accountability.

I support the idea of the Chair picking a Vice Chair who serves at the behest of the Chair.

JB

I support the idea of the Chair picking a Vice Chair

Ditto.
The Chair needs to be comfortable that his "replacement" will do his bidding in his absence, so it SHOULD be his choice.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Word UP!

I'm contacting possible candidates for this position. Until I hear from the accepting candidate, there's not much reason to keep this thread open. Therefore I will Lock it.

I'll open it back up with any news.

PS - If someone wants to volunteer for the position, please PM me. If I think we can work well together, you might just get the job. Pretty much all you need are more organizational skills than I have.

It's clear from this discussion that no one challenged Scott's right to the Chairmanship. It's also clear that he had the right to choose and replace his vice chair who "serves at the behest of the Chair" to quote your own words. Jack (SG) was fine with that as well. Not one person voiced a disagreement which made it essentially unanimous. And yet you have the nerve to say that Scott was somehow NOT the legitimate Chair?

Disgusting JB. Just disgusting.