Re: The Role of the SPF council
2004-12-15 15:10:35
[Sorry about the long quote but I didn't want to summarize or take anything
out of context]
--Jonathan Gardner <jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com> wrote:
The bylaws are a contract among the members of the organization. It is
the mechanism whereby the voice of the organization is heard and their
will known. You talk about where the council has the support or lack
thereof of the community. How can the council know for sure unless that
has been acknowledged and written down?
If we had bylaws that stated the purpose of the council, they would have
the obvious and blatant support of the community. They could say things
like "The community says" and such. Right now, they have no authority
and no mandate from the community. They are a group of very intelligent
and nice people, but they have no authority.
...
You're misunderstanding the point of the bylaws. Yes, they help in a
crisis, but they also give authority to the right people for day-to-day
operations. Let's say I want to donate $5 to the SPF community. Who do I
give it to? How is it recorded? What will it be used for? Who will
authorize its spending? What if a reporter comes to Meng asking for a
statement on behalf of the community? Can he give it? Does he represent
the community or not? These are all basic questions we cannot answer at
this time.
...
Mission-statement is a charter, while bylaws are work group procedures
and both are important for well functioning group. Many groups bypass
exact following of bylaws when things are done informarly but have them
available and use them when there are "frictions" within the group.
I don't believe this is true. A lot of so-called organizations don't have
any rules except whatever they think is fair. (They shouldn't call
themselves organizations because they never organized!) The end result is
always confusion.
Wow, I could not disagree more strongly with this if I tried. Rules do not
make an organization. Uniting behind common goals makes an organization.
Think of it this way. You would never get a bunch of people into a room
and have them all agree on the "rules" by which they will interact, unless
they already had a common purpose that drew them into that room.
In your statement, the whole purpose and reason for being is implied, and
the minutiae are explicit. That seems totally backwards to me. I think a
healthy organization should have unity of purpose. All other agreements
are built from that unity of purpose.
In other words, leadership may often do without management, but management
without leadership is hollow and unproductive.
If you're curious as to how a family works, most cultures acknowledge
either an equal partnership between spouses (in Western societies), or
they give absolute authority to the husband (Middle East and Asian
societies). This is done by default and there is no need to formalize it
as it is understood. We have no such understanding here, except the
culture and customs that we inherited (Robert's Rules documenting them.)
Most families work without a documented mission statement and documented
rules. Sadly, I think more families have documented rules than have
mission statements. It should be the other way around.
An organization *can* work by well-documented rules. Rules are good for
keeping people in line, whether they don't hold with the group's central
purpose but they want to "hang around" anyway, OR if they genuinely feel
united with the purpose but have sincere differences of opinion about how
to accomplish it. In other words, rules make the system work "as well as
possible" but not its best.
It's too bad that most of us have *far* more experience with dysfunctional
relationships and organizations than with healthy ones. But, when we work
solely from our experience of the past, we are likely to repeat it over and
over. Humans sometimes focus on learning facts and forget that they also
posess creative imagination, the ability to create a vision of how things
can be different in the future, and the willpower to make the vision a
reality. There are examples of healthy organizations all around, even
though they are outnumbered. One cannot learn a principle just by copying
a practice, so trying to mimic successful organziations doesn't make
another successful; they must learn the principle behind the practice and
apply it in context.
A *healthy* organization, whether it be a family, club, company,
non-profit, or department within a larger organization, or whatever, is a
group of individuals united behind a common purpose. This can be implied,
or well-documented, but it is usually there, if the organization is healthy.
If an organization has enough *trust* between people, they can usually
dispense with the rules. If the best way to get something done happens to
be against the rules, the parties can agree and short-circuit the rules,
and get the job done anyway. They can do this because they are united by a
common purpose and common principles, and they put their purpose and
principles above the specific practices. Practices do not unite people;
they are merely specific instances of an underlying principle, and when
circumstances change, the principle still holds, even if the practices
don't work. Learn, teach, and agree on principles, not on practices.
So, Short version: Rules are OK, but they can never trump a strong mission
statement (charter). The mission statement comes first. Rules do not
provide purpose. Rules without purpose is ritual without faith.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: SPF HELO checking, (continued)
- The Role of the SPF council, wayne
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, Greg Connor
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, william(at)elan.net
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, Jonathan Gardner
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, Greg Connor
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, wayne
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, william(at)elan.net
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, Jonathan Gardner
- Re: The Role of the SPF council,
Greg Connor <=
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, wayne
- Re: The Role of the SPF council, Frank Ellermann
Re: Agenda item: SenderID Position Statement, jpinkerton
Re: Agenda item: SenderID Position Statement, Nico Kadel-Garcia
|
|
|