[Fg-general] Changes in the Warehouse

[Luke Closs]

Hi Ryan,

Thank you for asking questions and seeking clarity.  I've answered in-line.


On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ryan Yeske <rcyeske at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This decision was made based on information received from
>> several sources. The directors weighed the options, and came to
>> the conclusion that this course of action was best for Free
>> Geek.
>>
>> Our goal in this decision is to allow Free Geek to organize the
>> warehouse, codify procedures and policy for the warehouse and
>> facilitate the transition to a new employee while being fair and
>> respectful to both Adam and Free Geek. To ensure Free Geek continues
>> to be a safe and healthy space.
>
> I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this. Does this mean that it
> was felt that organizing the warehouse, codifying procedures and policy
> for the warehouse and training a new employee could not have been done
> with Adam staying on until the 23rd? And so the motivation to do these
> things informed the decision to pay Adam out? Or this was a secondary
> goal?

Essentially yes.  Organizing the warehouse and codifying procedures
and policy had been TODOs for months, and didn't happen.  We didn't
feel it was likely they would be done (and done with the quality we
felt necessary) in the remaining few days.  Adam certainly could have
trained a new employee, but the Directors felt it was not in the best
interests of FG to train a new hire without an organized warehouse and
proper procedures and policy in place.

>> This was not an easy decision to come to, and we, as directors, feel
>> that this illustrates a shortcoming of the organization: There are no
>> policies and procedures to guide staff, directors and the membership
>> in making decisions like this one.
>
> When we find a lack of policy and procedure, we should go back to our
> principles.
>
> Down at the bottom of the "Our Principles" webpage [1] there is the
> "additional" text:
>
>    Free Geeks are democratically run in a non-hierarchical way that is
>    open and transparent to all participants in its programs. Our
>    volunteers help shape Free Geek and determine our priorities and
>    practices. We operate using a form of consensus, and we are
>    currently developing our governance structure. Our meetings and
>    mailing list archives are open to the public. Our staff is a
>    collective -- there's no boss.

Very good observation, thank you for bringing it up.

>From my perspective, I think FG lives up to this principle for *most*
operational activities.  But where we run into trouble is with "HR
issues", where the staff and directors cannot be completely
transparent and open for privacy reasons.  Add to this our lack of
explicit disciplinary policy (hopefully that is changing), and we get
into these situations where the Directors or the Staff cannot (or at
least have the perception they cannot) be completely transparent.

So I think the way we have chosen to deal with this is to elect a
Board of Directors that the membership trusts will exercise the right
amount of discretion in these matters.  When I, as a Board member
learn about activities that (in my perspective) put FG into legal risk
that I deem unacceptable, I need to take action.  When I cannot
publicly state the full details behind my decision making process, it
is really difficult, and I can see how it would be surprising or
frustrating to others.

So I don't know what the answer is, or what a better system is, but
I'm open to ideas.  But certainly we cannot have all staff reviews and
all disciplinary notices ... be completely public and open to the
public.

With our current system, my suggestion for those who are frustrated
with this situation to become Directors themselves,


>> Some work has recently been done drafting procedures and a staff
>> handbook. We strongly encourage this.
>>
>> Thank you to those who have participated in this work.
>>
>> David Repa has stepped up to help with training the new Warehouse
>> Coordinator (once hired) and will ensure that operations continue
>> without interruption in the interim. David has already contributed
>> work towards the much needed staff policies.
>
> Much appreciated David.
>
> A few questions about this:
>
> 1) What exactly are the terms of this arrangement? Duration,
> compensation, expectations, participation in staff meetings, etc.

Here are the details as I know it:
* David's term is a 4 week contract, 3 weeks of warehouse org, 1 week
of new-hire training.
* David suggested compensation in-kind, but Directors prefer to cash
compensation.
* David will be a contractor (like a consultant).  I would expect him
to attend staff meetings to report on the warehouse as normal.
* I expect the same level of transparency from David as with other
staff members (or greater).
** David has already started logging his activites to the fg-operations group.

> 2) Was David solicited by the directors and/or the staff to fill this
> role?

David offered his services to me personally, and I worked with David
and other directors to work out the details.

> 3) Were other candidates considered?

Not external candidates.  We looked at a variety of options, including
rotating existing staff to cover.  We felt that due to David's
extensive history with FG and experience in the warehouse, that he
would be an ideal candidate.

> 4) How will this arrangement affect other staff and volunteers?

If your question is about day-to-day FG activities, we expect David to
perform warehouse activities as in the job description.

If your question is about FG culture and morale, I guess time will tell.


> 5) Has thought been given to potential conflict of interest issues,
> considering that the wholesale purchases of David's company made up
> approximately 1/3 of the Free Geek's store revenue last month [2]?

Yes, we considered this issue.  David has a vested interest in the
continuing success of FreeGeek.  He has built a business around
freegeek, due to demand from customers that have been turned away from
past practices in the FG Store.  We had a period of time in the store
where some of our biggest customers started shopping elsewhere because
of how the store was run.  Many of them started contacting David
directly, to purchase from him instead of directly from FreeGeek.

Personally I think (hope?) David will have a positive impact on the
efficiency and operations of FreeGeek.

I'm open to ideas about how to avoid conflict of interest issues in
this arrangement.


>> We urge those who have opinions and ideas to get involved in the
>> process of documenting and organizing Free Geek.
>
> Additionally, we need to respect the structure of the organization that
> we have developed and that does exist. For example, there is a staff
> review policy and as I understand it, there are outstanding staff
> reviews pending. Adam's second review was one of them.

I've been involved in the HR committee for the past little while, and
in that committee and in several 1-on-1's, the staff review process
(or lack of) has been mentioned time and time again.

FreeGeek finds itself in a position of being understaffed, so staff
are scrambling and covering for each other, and not making time for
staff reviews.  In addition, the current documented staff review
process is extremely time intensive - making it even less likely to
happen.

One of the initiatives I'd like to work with the HR committee on is to
streamline the staff review process to:
* greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to perform reviews
* build in director involvement for staff reviews
* be something that FG *does regularly*
* follow up on past commitments and reviews

I hope with these changes, we'll actually do staff reviews, and have
our organization mature because of it.


> I acknowledge the efforts of the members of the board of directors, who
> freely give their time to this organization. Thank you.
>
> Ryan

I really appreciate the respectful tone of inquiry into all of this.

Luke