Difference between revisions of "Talk:Adding Members"
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I've been wondering if it's by design that the | + | Apple said ->I've been wondering if it's by design that the identity of current officers and board members must be actively inquired about? Maybe buried deep in meeting notes or annual reports? |
----- | ----- | ||
There's no conspiracy. Necessity is the mother of invention; that's to say: it's that way because there's never been a need to publish that info beyond what is required by law. | There's no conspiracy. Necessity is the mother of invention; that's to say: it's that way because there's never been a need to publish that info beyond what is required by law. | ||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | Apple said ->I'm willing to support public fictions if they help me stay away from contemplating OD issues. Now if someone would build ideal OpAmps :) | ||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | Steve asks - what are 'OD' issues? I'm assuming not the Heroin kind of OD. Should we put the Board Members on the front page of the Wiki? I think this hasn't come up in the past as part of the 'small group' effect - everybody knows everybody, including who the officers are. I think we want to strive for open-ness and transparency as much as possible. | ||
| + | ---------- | ||
| + | Apple replys- OD as in Organizational Development. But could be in the OD'd sense of too many people making a living teaching team building skills in the business setting ;) | ||
| + | |||
| + | So there is a conspiracy to foster "small group feeling" ;) A good thing, yes. I think I heard "flat organization" recently. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm thinking an orphan page called "current officers" maybe even requiring the bloominglabs login to view. | ||
| + | |||
| + | My thinking is that keeping an organization flat require quite a bit of effort. My theorm of organiztional decline is that "over time people with power will tend to use their power for self benefit". Maybe I shouldn't call it my theorm since the book " Animal Farm" more or less makes the case. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:50, 31 July 2015
Apple said ->I've been wondering if it's by design that the identity of current officers and board members must be actively inquired about? Maybe buried deep in meeting notes or annual reports?
There's no conspiracy. Necessity is the mother of invention; that's to say: it's that way because there's never been a need to publish that info beyond what is required by law.
Apple said ->I'm willing to support public fictions if they help me stay away from contemplating OD issues. Now if someone would build ideal OpAmps :)
Steve asks - what are 'OD' issues? I'm assuming not the Heroin kind of OD. Should we put the Board Members on the front page of the Wiki? I think this hasn't come up in the past as part of the 'small group' effect - everybody knows everybody, including who the officers are. I think we want to strive for open-ness and transparency as much as possible.
Apple replys- OD as in Organizational Development. But could be in the OD'd sense of too many people making a living teaching team building skills in the business setting ;)
So there is a conspiracy to foster "small group feeling" ;) A good thing, yes. I think I heard "flat organization" recently.
I'm thinking an orphan page called "current officers" maybe even requiring the bloominglabs login to view.
My thinking is that keeping an organization flat require quite a bit of effort. My theorm of organiztional decline is that "over time people with power will tend to use their power for self benefit". Maybe I shouldn't call it my theorm since the book " Animal Farm" more or less makes the case.
