Proposal allow Operations to split into multiple postitions

[David Lang]

Today is the last day for proposals to go out to be voted on at the first HYH in
December. They do not need to be in their final form until Dec 4 (a week before
the HYH meeting). I had been planning to hold off on several things, but with
the proposal to throw out a lot of the current bylaws, I am going to go through
the points that I think need improvement and see where the dicussion takes us
over the next couple of weeks before the proposal must be finalized. I am going
to do multiple small proposals instead of one big one.

Operations is by far the biggest job on the board, and it can require a wide
range of expertise, even if just supervising others.

I propose that we create additional jobs under operations that people can run
for to split the load

ones that come to mind are:
facilities (everything building related, roof, electrical, etc)
IT (website, wiki, other tools)
Or just an assistant


they can be given fancy names if needed.

should these people get votes on the Board? (the 2nd Champion and Finance people
would, so it makes sense that at least some of the additional Operations people
should get a vote.

David Lang

[Moheeb Zara]

So while that does make sense, what should happen is operations enables and finds people in the community to help take that extra responsibility on. Otherwise then we are complicating the board elections.

I'd almost consider those roles more like station heads but that should be adhoc whoever wants to take it on with operations being the fallback. 

[Chris McLaughlin]

While the operations positions does require a much higher commitment of service to the lab over just a member, it is a volunteer position, and it is not hard to ask for help. As a community we can pitch in and work with the board to accomplish whatever is needed for the lab.

The last thing we need is a chain of command to change the toilet paper in the restroom.

On Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 10:14:26 PM UTC-7 david.eu...@gmail.com wrote:

[David Lang]

Moheeb Zara wrote:

> So while that does make sense, what should happen is operations enables and
> finds people in the community to help take that extra responsibility on.
> Otherwise then we are complicating the board elections.
>
> I'd almost consider those roles more like station heads but that should be
> adhoc whoever wants to take it on with operations being the fallback.

like it or not, there are times when authority is needed (to pick between
options, or to tell someone 'no, don't do that'). There also needs to be some
accountability (if you are in change of electrical, then outlet maps need to be
stored in a place others can get at them) and transition plans need to be made
so that when a person backs away from the role, someone else has the info they
need to take over.

so I think this needs to be a little more than adhoc and self appointed.

David Lang

[Rick Blake]

Operations appears to be, indeed, a skilled and complex position. If operations wish to, I could see where could delegate and not have to make any changes to bylaws etc. I could see where IT operations would benefit from specialization, or from sharing duties. And even asking if one of several people could potentially accomplish something of urgency. Not sure that this would require bylaw would it?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/or413ppp-s55r-724n-o37o-2o623s290166%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Rick Blake wrote:

> Operations appears to be, indeed, a skilled and complex position. If
> operations wish to, I could see where could delegate and not have to make
> any changes to bylaws etc. I could see where IT operations would benefit
> from specialization, or from sharing duties. And even asking if one of
> several people could potentially accomplish something of urgency. Not sure
> that this would require bylaw would it?

just delegating would not require bylaw changes.

But currently both Finance and Champion allow for one or two people to be
elected. Arguably Operations is as big or bigger a job, so it seems to me that
if someone is doing that much work, they should get the recognition and board
vote to go along with the responsibility they are taking on.

should members have a direct say in who is running IT or facilities? or should
it just be up to the person elected to Operations? to try and attract a
volunteer?

David Lang

[Nate Caine]

David Lang,Your insulting comments in your 3:58 post are not appreciated.   They are not so thinly veiled, and directed at me personally.
Had you more than a few months experience at HeatSync before running for the board, you'd appreciate how ill-informed your remarks are.
A few of your current board members can update you about work I've done for the lab.
Also, I made it known, well in advance, that I would not be continuing in what has devolved into the roll of HeatSyncs's slave-labor janitor.
Attempts to blame me for the contentious transition between Boards is mis-directed; I am not a Board member.
Find someone else to blame for these problems.Nate Caine

[David Lang]

I did not intend any attack against you or anyone else.

You have been doing a lot of the facilities work, and I think that if you want
to continue doing so, you should get the recognition and voice to go along with
that.

I'm sorry that you read anything I said as an attack.

David Lang

On Sat, 15 Nov 2025, Nate Caine wrote:

> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 13:27:58 -0800 (PST)
> From: Nate Caine <nate...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
> To: HeatSync Labs <heatsy...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [HSL] Re: Proposal allow Operations to split into multiple
> postitions

[Brett Neese]

Nate, 

If anything Lang said was an attack on you, I certainly didn’t read it as such. We are aware and have been extremely appreciative of your work on the lab over the years. Certainly, no one is blaming you for the actions of others.

Brett

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/0p817397-s054-oson-18po-3sosrr9q970p%40ynat.uz.

[Sheldon McGee]

David,

I appreciate you digging in and trying to solve a real, long-standing problem at the lab: how to get essential tasks done without burning out our most dedicated volunteers.

However, I'm deeply concerned that this proposal fundamentally mistakes what motivates people to volunteer at HeatSync.

In my experience, people don't volunteer here because they want a title or are looking for "authority." They volunteer because:

1. They see a specific need and are empowered to fill it (a "do-ocracy").

2. They are passionate about a specific area (like lasers, photography, sewing, etc).

This proposal to turn these roles into "super-volunteer" board positions with "power" is, in my opinion, ill-conceived for our culture.

Here’s why I think it will have the opposite effect:

• It discourages community ownership. The moment you create a "Head of Facilities" (as Nate's been unofficially), you give every other member permission to stop caring. It's no longer a shared community responsibility; it becomes one person's "job." Nate has made it clear he doesn't want this "job" and certainly doesn't want to be on the hook whenever someone notices that a light bulb is out or an electrical box isn't labeled.  He will always help when he can because he cares about Heatsync. But expecting him to do any of these things is wrong. I can say the same about 3D Printing. Yes, we have 3D printing champions, but does that mean everyone else can pile 3D printers in a corner and expect that the champions will deal with it? Of course not. It's a group effort. 

• It guarantees burnout. You're not actually giving someone "power"; you're just formalizing Nate's "slave-labor janitor" role. You're handing them a title for a job that everyone else now has an excuse to ignore. That's a fast-track to resentment and rage-quitting.

• It's not the right incentive. The "reward" for doing work at HSL isn't a board seat. The reward is a functioning lab, the appreciation of your peers, and the ability to work on cool projects.

The board's role isn't to be the super-volunteers. The board's role is to reduce the friction for other people to be volunteers.

Instead of creating new positions of "power", we should be asking: How can the board make it easier for the next person to step up? 

Just my two cents as a long-time member who's seen this cycle before. 

Sheldon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/0p817397-s054-oson-18po-3sosrr9q970p%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Sheldon McGee wrote:

> However, I'm deeply concerned that this proposal fundamentally mistakes
> what motivates people to volunteer at HeatSync.

Thank you for responding to the proposal itself.

> In my experience, people don't volunteer here because they want a title or
> are looking for "authority." They volunteer because:
>

> 1.
>
> They see a specific need and are empowered to fill it (a *"do-ocracy"*).
> 2.

>
> They are passionate about a specific area (like lasers, photography,
> sewing, etc).
>
> This proposal to turn these roles into "super-volunteer" board positions
> with "power" is, in my opinion, ill-conceived for our culture.
>

> *Here’s why I think it will have the opposite effect:*
>
> -
>
> *It discourages community ownership.* The moment you create a "Head of

> Facilities" (as Nate's been unofficially), you give every other member

> permission to *stop* caring. It's no longer a shared community

> responsibility; it becomes one person's "job."

I will say that I've seen this with the existing situation, people (including
board members) assuming that Nate will take care of it

> Nate has made it clear he
> doesn't want this "job" and certainly doesn't want to be on the hook
> whenever someone notices that a light bulb is out or an electrical box
> isn't labeled. He will always help when he can because he cares about
> Heatsync. But expecting him to do any of these things is wrong. I can say
> the same about 3D Printing. Yes, we have 3D printing champions, but does
> that mean everyone else can pile 3D printers in a corner and expect that
> the champions will deal with it? Of course not. It's a group effort.

> -
>
> *It guarantees burnout.* You're not actually giving someone "power";

> you're just formalizing Nate's "slave-labor janitor" role. You're handing
> them a title for a job that everyone else now has an excuse to ignore.
> That's a fast-track to resentment and rage-quitting.

> -
>
> *It's not the right incentive.* The "reward" for doing work at HSL isn't

> a board seat. The reward is a functioning lab, the appreciation of your
> peers, and the ability to work on cool projects.
>

> The board's role isn't to *be* the super-volunteers. The board's role is to
> *reduce the friction for other people* to be volunteers.

>
> Instead of creating new positions of "power", we should be asking: How can

> the board make it easier for the *next* person to step up?

I welcome other ideas here

David Lang

[Sheldon McGee]

David,

Responding to detailed feedback with "I welcome other ideas" is a tactic that often serves to shut down discussion. It effectively shifts the burden of solving a problem onto the community member who was helping by providing that feedback.

This dynamic is a classic way to burn out the very volunteers you're claiming to support. Furthermore, flooding the community with a barrage of top-down proposals like this feels deeply disrespectful of our time and established processes.

At HeatSync, proposals traditionally come from the community. While board members are part of the community, the board's primary role has always been to listen and facilitate, not to govern from the top down by pushing its own agenda through a flood of ill-conceived proposals.

To be clear: My feedback is my contribution.

I've done my part as a community member by identifying that this proposal is fundamentally at odds with our culture and will hurt, not help, volunteer motivation. The board's next step should be to retract this proposal and listen to what the community wants, not ask its volunteers to fix the board's ideas.

Sheldon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/1291s58o-s49q-27os-674o-7924nq62o6pp%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Sheldon McGee wrote:

> David,
>
> Responding to detailed feedback with "I welcome other ideas" is a tactic
> that often serves to shut down discussion. It effectively shifts the burden

> of *solving* a problem onto the community member who was helping by
> *providing* that feedback.

It is very much not my intent to dshut down discussion, I want more discussion,
not less. I apologize if it came off that way. I was attempting to encourage
other people to comment.

> This dynamic is a classic way to burn out the very volunteers you're
> claiming to support. Furthermore, flooding the community with a barrage of
> top-down proposals like this feels deeply disrespectful of our time and
> established processes.

being elected to the board does not deprive me of the right to make suggestions.
I would not have made all these small suggestions all at once if there wasn't
the 'revert to march' proposal in flight. my flood of proposals was my intent to
go through the existing bylaws and call out where I see issues to get people
thinking about how to fix them.

I deliberately made most of them vauge to try and solicit feedback rather than
them coming across as if they were demands (the voting proposals needed specific
detail to be clear about the idea, but even there I tried to list many options
rather than just specify one)

David Lang

> At HeatSync, proposals traditionally come *from* the community. While board

> members are part of the community, the board's primary role has always been
> to listen and facilitate, not to govern from the top down by pushing its
> own agenda through a flood of ill-conceived proposals.
>

> To be clear: My feedback *is* my contribution.

[Moheeb Zara]

We dont have to agree and we can most assuredly discuss and debate here (although I am always in the camp of having these discussions in person where possible) I think its a measure of good faith from David Lang as a new board member to bring these up as proposals to the community and the reasoning is sound considering the reset proposal. 

As to this particular one, I still firmly believe it makes more sense for operations to just find and encourage people in the community to commit to volunteership, versus making each responsibility a legally bound position, because what you also don't want is to choose ur electrician by election. It should be whoever can offer those time and resources and commit to a shared process. Ultimately everyone is an unpaid volunteer, so making it a board position would only reduce friction in access but that access can easily be given by the operations head. 

I think its something operations needs to explore is how to go about organizing people and finding people who are passionate about helping to maintain the space or uplifting and supporting the existing volunteers that take on those responsibilities. In my time as operations I mostly just made sure the people who had the skills and either were or wanted to work on the things that related to facilities and operations had what they needed to do it and used best judgement when to suggest we take a step back to make a decision together or if I needed to make the call. 

So when this does come to a vote I will be voting No, I would like for our new operations to have time to settle in and think on this more. I want to see how things play out before we talk about splitting up the responsibilities. Because keep in mind this would be adding board seats which adds more beauricratic complexity. 

Now if the proposal were to treat certain facilities areas of focus as stations so someone can more formally be the point of contact, I'd be for that. 

[Cprossu]

When I was allowed by the community to helm operations, my experience was even when delegating as many jobs out as I could I was still not able to keep my head above water. It's really easy to reach the burn out stage if you have any other ambitions over what the job and tasks that are required for a successful term of service. 

It's a tremendous responsibility that requires a lot of hats and knowledge in many fields and I do think it's overbearing with how the lab has grown and changed. It's far too much work for one person to do, even if the only job is trying to delegate jobs out to those who could best do them. I went from having an overall vision on where I wanted things to help the community improve the space with tools and a plan to a mindset of just trying to put out fires and to stop fires already burning from getting larger. It was not helpful in my stewardship of the position and I was left overworked especially as I was championing the 3D print station at the time too. I bit off way more than I could chew and my decisions and procrastination did not improve things for the next person who took over for me. My 2 cents is I think at the very least IT (for our internal and external networks, computers, code, servers, and accounts) needs to be it's own thing and should not share the burden of all the other things that fall under the umbrella of Operations though.

[David Lang]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2025, Cprossu wrote:

> When I was allowed by the community to helm operations, my experience was
> even when delegating as many jobs out as I could I was still not able to
> keep my head above water. It's really easy to reach the burn out stage if
> you have any other ambitions over what the job and tasks that are required
> for a successful term of service.
>
> It's a tremendous responsibility that requires a lot of hats and knowledge
> in many fields and I do think it's overbearing with how the lab has grown
> and changed. It's far too much work for one person to do, even if the only
> job is trying to delegate jobs out to those who could best do them. I went
> from having an overall vision on where I wanted things to help the
> community improve the space with tools and a plan to a mindset of just
> trying to put out fires and to stop fires already burning from getting
> larger. It was not helpful in my stewardship of the position and I was left
> overworked especially as I was championing the 3D print station at the time
> too. I bit off way more than I could chew and my decisions and
> procrastination did not improve things for the next person who took over
> for me. My 2 cents is I think at the very least IT (for our internal and
> external networks, computers, code, servers, and accounts) needs to be it's
> own thing and should not share the burden of all the other things that fall
> under the umbrella of Operations though.

Thanks for the feedback from someone who has faced the problem directly. Once
you have had a chance to think a bit more about it, I'd love to hear if you
think there is any other split that should be made (especially considering the
posts upstream about volunteerism and motivation)

David Lang