[conspire] Fwd: Re: [sf-lug] Looking for a Senior MySQL administrator in San Francisco

[Rick Moen]

Quoting jim stockford (jim at well.com):

>     I guess I mean "nominal leaders", as I certainly do
> some stuff and the validity of the group derives from
> the contributors, so we do have leaders via action,
> but it seems most welcoming to claim no leadership
> and thus be inviting as possible to all to lead as they
> may be inclined. Kind of a wiki spirit, yes?

Yes.  I've long been trying to work out the best approach in that area.

Just a bit of CABAL history:  It was historically a San Francisco group,
taking over from SFpcUG's Linux SIG when that organisation left its
rented space in the CoffeeNet building in SOMA.  Though I lived right
above the CoffeeNet building (having helped build that Linux-based
Internet cafe), I was in every other sense _not_ a leader of the group:
It was pretty much entirely in the hands of Mike Higashi (of Pinole) and 
Doug Lym and Duncan MacKinnon (of S.F.).  

After I personally moved to Menlo Park, both to be closer to my
then-newish job in Sunnyvale, and because my wife and I needed something
more like real housing, I still kept coming to CABAL meetings and
heading their installfests at the Cow Palace and Oakland Convention
Centers (inside the Robert Austin Computer Shows) -- and realised that
CABAL had developed a serious problem when the CoffeeNet facility fell
victim to real estate intrigues.  So, I offered what was supposed to be
_temporary_ meeting space in Menlo Park while others pursued options for
replacement venues in S.F.  None of those ever panned out -- and,
moreover, the San Francisco regulars almost never made it down to Menlo
Park.  Against my intentions, then, CABAL became a Peninsula / Silicon
Valley group, and I became de facto group leader, because everyone else
had gone away.  Which was disheartening, but seemed better than the
group dissolving.

The big problem initially at our events in Menlo Park (which started
doing double-duty as installfests when Robert Austin Company went broke)
was perceived dependence on _me_:  People would show up and direct all
questions on anything towards me solely -- which got downright
exhausting, boded poorly for the group's continuity, and made me the 
single point of failure and bottleneck for everything.  

Thank heavens, a number of other regulars soon stepped in and assumed
leadership:  In particular, I'd like to point to Daniel Gimpelevich,
Ross Bernheim, Bruce Coston (excuse me, "bruce coston" ;-> ), Adrien
Lamothe, Peter Knaggs, Mark Weisler, Calvin Wong, Patrick Killelea, Tom
Macke, and George Woolley, without whose valued contributions and
kick-ass technical help this would be a lot less fun.

Part of the knack of holding groups together is to document whatever are
the essential processes (like, reserving meeting space), inviting people
to join the effort, and try to make continuity as quick and
friction-free as possible.  I have my doubts about whether claiming
publicly to have "no leaders" is the best way to achieve this:  More
likely, it just makes the necessary leadership tasks more obscure and
little-understood, making it _more_ difficult to keep the group going
when transitions are necessary.