Jimmy C’s post has provided me with an opportunity to discuss how we work together as a Board. I hope you all take this in the positive manner I intend it. And I welcome your thoughts. We all bring things to this organization. Working together we can achieve a great deal more than if any of we were running things as a solo act as Steve did.
One of the major differences between NCWW as it is run now and as it was run under Steve Coles is that by virtue of the fact that there are seven Board members we cannot always be as fast to react as Steve could. Steve did not have to consult anyone else, we have to.
For the great part I believe this year’s Board has worked together well. We have had to iron out some issues along the way, but that is to be expected, especially in light of the fact that this is our first year of existence. For myself, learning that any moderation I do will be taken differently than a regular moderator was eye-opening. I stepped away from moderating because of that fact. People were just not taking my moderation as “regular” moderation, but as something more.
There are three things I think we should all bear in mind in our roles as Board members:
1. Respect. We need to show each other respect. For the most part we do a good job of this. We need to let each of the other Board members do their jobs with regard to their respective responsibilities. If we have suggestions or ideas for some aspect of NCWW that falls under another Board members responsibilities the proper thing is to bring it to that member’s attention and perhaps discuss it at a Board meeting.
2. Benefit of the Doubt. We need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. This is really just a subset of respect. Once again I think we do a good job here. I truly feel each Board member has been trying to achieve what is best for the organization and the membership. We should try to look at the work of our fellow Board members from the perspective that each of us is trying to do what they hope is the best for NCWW.
3. Communication. We need to talk thing over and not do things that represent the Board on our own. This area could use the most improvement. Everything we do is seen as coming from the organization, whether we want it to be that way or not. Everything has ramifications. There have been times where I have wanted to response to some issue ASAP. However, my first response would have had unintended consequences. Fortunately, when I have discussed it in the Board of Directors forum, you all have provided me with balance and we achieve a more measured response. Our discussion about signature lines is a great example. After a thoughtful discussion the consensus was not to ban them. The initial idea was to eliminate that option. Overall a good decision was made. We would probably have opened a hornet’s nest if we had eliminated the signature lines, as well as punished the significant majority for the actions of a small few.
The latest post by Jimmy C presented another challenge. You can probably tell from my posts I was ****ed. No need to repeat what I have already said with regard to that issue. Part of me wanted to respond to him right away as Stuart did. But I did not for multiple reasons.
First, I knew I was not going to change Jimmy’s mind. He has held his contrarian attitude for more than a year (at least). Why should I stir up trouble, which might require us to put out some fires made in response, when there is virtually no chance of making a positive difference with Jimmy?
Second, I knew that anything I said would be considered as coming from the Board and as a matter of respect I would want to run it by the rest of you before doing that.
Third, in view of the fact that Jimmy was denigrating an NCWW event, it is best if any response come from Scott, the Events director.
While I doubt Jimmy will take any response we make well, I hope this does not spiral into a bigger problem. It is unfortunate that he has gone from a major contributing member to a naysayer. I do not know him well enough to speak to his motivation, and it would not be fair for me to guess.
As I said, I welcome your thoughts.
Doug
One of the major differences between NCWW as it is run now and as it was run under Steve Coles is that by virtue of the fact that there are seven Board members we cannot always be as fast to react as Steve could. Steve did not have to consult anyone else, we have to.
For the great part I believe this year’s Board has worked together well. We have had to iron out some issues along the way, but that is to be expected, especially in light of the fact that this is our first year of existence. For myself, learning that any moderation I do will be taken differently than a regular moderator was eye-opening. I stepped away from moderating because of that fact. People were just not taking my moderation as “regular” moderation, but as something more.
There are three things I think we should all bear in mind in our roles as Board members:
1. Respect. We need to show each other respect. For the most part we do a good job of this. We need to let each of the other Board members do their jobs with regard to their respective responsibilities. If we have suggestions or ideas for some aspect of NCWW that falls under another Board members responsibilities the proper thing is to bring it to that member’s attention and perhaps discuss it at a Board meeting.
2. Benefit of the Doubt. We need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. This is really just a subset of respect. Once again I think we do a good job here. I truly feel each Board member has been trying to achieve what is best for the organization and the membership. We should try to look at the work of our fellow Board members from the perspective that each of us is trying to do what they hope is the best for NCWW.
3. Communication. We need to talk thing over and not do things that represent the Board on our own. This area could use the most improvement. Everything we do is seen as coming from the organization, whether we want it to be that way or not. Everything has ramifications. There have been times where I have wanted to response to some issue ASAP. However, my first response would have had unintended consequences. Fortunately, when I have discussed it in the Board of Directors forum, you all have provided me with balance and we achieve a more measured response. Our discussion about signature lines is a great example. After a thoughtful discussion the consensus was not to ban them. The initial idea was to eliminate that option. Overall a good decision was made. We would probably have opened a hornet’s nest if we had eliminated the signature lines, as well as punished the significant majority for the actions of a small few.
The latest post by Jimmy C presented another challenge. You can probably tell from my posts I was ****ed. No need to repeat what I have already said with regard to that issue. Part of me wanted to respond to him right away as Stuart did. But I did not for multiple reasons.
First, I knew I was not going to change Jimmy’s mind. He has held his contrarian attitude for more than a year (at least). Why should I stir up trouble, which might require us to put out some fires made in response, when there is virtually no chance of making a positive difference with Jimmy?
Second, I knew that anything I said would be considered as coming from the Board and as a matter of respect I would want to run it by the rest of you before doing that.
Third, in view of the fact that Jimmy was denigrating an NCWW event, it is best if any response come from Scott, the Events director.
While I doubt Jimmy will take any response we make well, I hope this does not spiral into a bigger problem. It is unfortunate that he has gone from a major contributing member to a naysayer. I do not know him well enough to speak to his motivation, and it would not be fair for me to guess.
As I said, I welcome your thoughts.
Doug
