A thread on the techpodcasts google group and Todd Cochrane

[joedemax]

As an internet broadcaster, the IAIB has done nothing but helped me. As a result of the ridiculous response from TPN, i'll be having absolutely no more involvement with it.

[angelo]

We have reservations because of the past Association called the ADM. If you want to take that as some sort of anti-IAIB then I apologize that's not what we intended.

A lot of people put a lot of unpaid work, time and money into the ADM and it went down in flames because someone used the ADM web site to advertise they were going to take their patent for podcasting and start litigating podcasting companies to compensate them. It ruined the ADM and yes it makes us extremely reserved with anything called an "Association".

[Jadori]

IAIB has helped me greatly. I was at the point I am not going to lie that I was going to give up on this industry. This is due to the fact that I have mentioned in the past that the podcasting and new media industry can be a selfish business. This is exactly what people want us to do to argue and have traditional media to treat us like a joke. If there were more people who wanted to work with each other instead of being selfish then I think that the industry would be taken more seriously. Just from being on IAIB for the time that I been here so far I have finally met some nice people in the industry. In the past, I was dealing with mean people who didn't want to work with the younger generation. But here, it is different. I can say for the first time in my life that I finally have a Internet broadcasting family. I love you guys! You have make a difference in my life and I am so grateful for that.

[Common Law Wife]

In the past there was a true trade association for our industry called the ADM (Association for Downloadable Media). The IAIB resembles nothing at all of an association like the ADM. The ADM was filed as a 501c non profit organization, it's actions were recorded and made public to comply with US and State laws. It had nearly all of the companies in the space as members, as well as thousands of independent podcasters. We had elections, all members were able to run for board and committee positions and all members were able to vote for those members running. There were annual/monthly meetings, both for the main board as well as for appointed committees. All meetings were held publicly, even non-ADM members were able to call into meetings. It was a true association in the sense. The organization followed the Robers Rules of Order, like all organizations are supposed to.

I just want to add my two cents here since I do have extensive experience and knowledge in working within the nonprofit sector since 2004. Whether the association is nonprofit, unregistered or other, many successful associations in the United States are no longer run by parliamentary procedure. There are several states where only a single board member is required for a 501c3 nonprofit corporation. To state as fact that the IAIB is not a "true" association is completely inaccurate based on law and both yours and Todd's criteria.

Here is a great excerpt that was posted on GuideStar from the book, "Great Boards for Small Groups: A 1-Hour Guide to Governing a Growing Nonprofit" concerning "Robert's Rules of Order."
http://www.guidestar.org/rxa/news/ar...rts-rules.aspx

It is important to note that 501c3 status has nothing to do with being a true association. It seems to be an inaccurate point that both you and Todd ( I heard his Saturday podcast where he discussed this ) are beating into the ground. Don't take my word for it, you should do your own due diligence and consult an attorney on this matter, which I believe is what you should have done before taking to Twitterland to state this misinformation as fact.

Having said all that, I do think it's good you joined the IAIB Community to at least attempt to set the record straight and perhaps move forward in a more positive manner.

----------
Going for Consensus, Not Robert's Rules
February 2008

Excerpt from Great Boards for Small Groups: A 1-Hour Guide to Governing a Growing Nonprofit

In my work with nonprofits, I'm always mystified by the pervasive use and abuse of parliamentary procedure, also known as Robert's Rules of Order.

Many, many board members believe that their discussions and decisions are somehow more valid when they make motions, second those motions, call the question, and hold formal votes that are recorded in the minutes

Furthermore, people who know the rules—or think they know the rules—often use their alleged know-how as a way to exercise power within the group. "That's out of order," bellows the board bully. "You need to raise a point of order if you're going to reopen discussion on that motion, and you can't do that because we've already accepted an amendment to the original motion."

In response, everyone else feels sheepish, looks confused, and refuses to speak. All sorts of petty arguments arise from the ignorance or abuse of parliamentary procedure.

There is no law mandating that nonprofits must make decisions using Robert's Rules. After all, you're not a parliament. You're an animal shelter, or a sports league, or a theater, or an advocacy organization.

By way of comparison, imagine you're sitting around with a group of friends, trying to decide on a place for dinner. You discuss the options; people advocate for one restaurant or another. Perhaps you reach a tentative decision. At that point, someone opts out, saying, "I had Thai for lunch, but if that's what everybody wants, please go and enjoy yourselves." Maybe the rest of you decide to go, but more likely you return to the list to try to identify another option that will work for everyone.

The decision-making model you're using is called *consensus, and it works something like this:

1. Someone presents an idea. It could be a formal proposal, but most of the time it's just an idea, not yet fully formed.

2. The idea is passed around and the pros and cons are discussed.

3. As a result of the discussion—the more input, the better—the idea is often modified.

4. If a general agreement seems to be emerging (this is where good listening and facilitation skills are helpful), you can test for consensus by restating the latest version of the idea or proposal to see if everybody agrees.

5. If anyone dissents, you return to the discussion to see if you can modify the idea further to make it acceptable to everyone.

Unlike parliamentary procedure, which results in an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote, the consensus process allows for (and even encourages) a continuum of responses. At one end is strong endorsement: "Great idea. I love it!" At the other end is strong disagreement: "It's a horrible idea, and I'll do everything I can to block it."

The consensus spectrum allows for more subtle reactions: "I like it pretty well" to "I don't like it, but I can live with it" to "I disagree, but if you're all in favor, I won't stand in the way." This is an intuitive way to make decisions, since it reflects how most of us make shared choices in our daily lives.

In the traditional consensus model, one person has the power to block the decision if they strongly disagree. If the board is unable to create a compromise to satisfy the blocker, they may call for a majority vote as a last resort. This is sometimes known as "modified consensus," and for groups that want to try out consensus, it may be the best way to begin.

Be aware that consensus decision making is often time consuming and requires patience and persistence. On the other hand, it creates a more informal and equitable environment where everyone's voice is valued. From my perspective, this is an excellent trade-off.

Andy Robinson
© 2006, Andy Robinson. Excerpted from Great Boards for Small Groups: A 1-Hour Guide to Governing a Growing Nonprofit.*Excerpted with permission of Emerson & Church, publishers.

Andy Robinson provides consulting and training services to the nonprofit community and can be reached at andyfund@earthlink.net. He is the author of Great Boards for Small Groups, Big Gifts for Small Groups, Grassroots Grants, and Selling Social Change.


*

[angelo]

Go ahead and replace the word True with Classic if you wish. I know what I'm saying: There was an association, it was setup with the best known intentions as a non profit and followed parliamentary procedures, in the end it had malicious results, it failed.

I had no intention to garnish such response. I am merely explaining why we had the reaction that we did initially.

[brianmonroe]

Angelo,

I am with Common Law on this one. I really do feel that with any organization it really does depend on the people at the top and their character. This is also true for corporations too. You will see companies fail, not because they have dummies working for them but because the people at the top do not see the larger picture and are able to guide the company forward. I really do not see it making much of a diference if you are following parliamentary procedures, are a 501c, 503c or whatever. What matter is the people at the top.

[Amnon]

I am merely explaining why we had the reaction that we did initially.

Angelo, why aren't we seeing Todd here explaining that? I thought HE was Mr. TPN, and you were the tech guy( am I wrong?). And when you say 'We' I sure hope you mean You and Todd, and not TPN!

[sunkast]

For what it's worth, I completely understand where Angelo and Todd are coming from. I too had a very similar experience a few years ago with a company, and certain individuals that screwed me over big time. It's for that exact reason I am leery of all message boards/forums, and new businesses.

It's perfectly fine for someone to be apprehensive about the IAIB due to their past experiences. However, it comes across as Todd taking it out on the IAIB with his actions and attitude, and goes beyond being bitter over such past experiences.

[Amnon]

For what it's worth, I completely understand where Angelo and Todd are coming from. I too had a very similar experience a few years ago with a company, and certain individuals that screwed me over big time. It's for that exact reason I am leery of all message boards/forums, and new businesses.

Leery is good. We learn from our experiences in life and go forward. We use these experiences to our advantage, and we know how to look out for such in the future. What is wrong is to insult and accuse a person who wears a black suit of wrong doing, just because you had a bad experience in the past with another person who wore a black suit :-)
I would still like to see Todd join the IAIB and participate, it will be beneficial to both him and the IAIB members.