Hello all,

I am not an AMSAT member.  I know no one personally or otherwise who is to my knowledge a member of AMSAT.  The last member I knew, was W5GEL.  Some may remember him.  He was well known and SK in July of 2003.  I have not worked a satellite in years.  I say all this to establish that I truly have no connection to anyone who has responded to any of this discussion.

My basic observation is the following:  AMSAT seems to have become the object of a takeover.  In the world of public companies this happens often, where an activist investor comes in with the intention of taking control of the company.  The reasons for this can be varied and complex.  Be it intellectual property, general assets or general control (usually with a mindset that the company is being run wrongly or ineptly.)  Because BODs in a public company are not really selected by all stock holders as such only by those who control the majority of the stock (don't fool yourself -- your vote is not equal to Buffett's, unless you own as many shares as he does.) The activist usually becomes well known as are his intentions.  A slate of directors is put up and if the activist wins, his board winners are nothing more than his proxies.  AMSAT is different instead of an individual buying stock for control, a program of "get the votes" from the general membership ensues.  To put it in distasteful terms a propaganda war ensues.  Your common Joe or Joelene just does not have the access to all that two board members did to get the votes to be elected.

Please don't be fooled by the, "it was this or it was that." There is a minority who wishes to become the majority.  By bringing all this to the public -- chaos ensues -- doubt clouds minds meanwhile control is taken.  There are two board members who have caused upheaval they are proxies for another.

I would suggest that whether you agree with the direction of AMSAT or not, do not let it change (deserving to change or not) because of a hijacking or coup.  If it wasn't the attorney expense excuse it would have been something else down the road.

Thanks, again, just an opinion based on nothing more than reading these discussions.

Henry -- K5YDD

On 7/13/2020 2:13 PM, Bruce Perens via AMSAT-BB wrote:

Most of you are members of AMSAT. IMO the organization has some serious problems, and as members it is your duty to steer the organization with your votes. That means that you should remain aware of what is going on and you should make an informed vote. The satellite discussions go on, mostly uninterrupted, all year. A short break for politics is not unreasonable, and acrimonious discussion is to be expected when we take that break.

Organisations are run by people who would not be doing the work if they did not have strong emotions about it. And they all have their own failings. Unfortunately, volunteer non-profit directors (and many public ones in big corporations) never learn a critical skill of democracy: *how to deal properly with opposition. *That is the root of what we are arguing about now. Opposition are not the enemy! Yet, they are clearly being treated as such. They are simply people who would reform the organization or take it in a different direction from the incumbents.

In this case, Michelle and Patrick, before they were elected, were the loyal opposition - dedicated to a better organization, and deeply troubled by the decisions and conduct of the incumbent board. The incumbent's response was not to work with the opposition, but to hunker down and use lawyers. To the incumbent's great distress, the very same people got sent to the board by the membership! Leading to more lawyers. IMO the incumbents should have read this as a signal from the membership, rather than doubling down their resistance.

The sad reality is that the newly-elected directors have never been allowed to function as directors. You should be concerned, since they are the people whom you elected to represent you. The main means used to disable your elected representatives has been refusal by the incumbents to hold board meetings. This refusal is almost total, with exactly *one* meeting being held after the organization's annual convention.

The second means used to disenfranchise the newly-elected directors was that the incumbents withheld information which a director would generally be expected to have access to. As it happened, this information was at least in part discussion of those very same people, and contracting of legal counsel in a process against them.

Every board has the right to legal counsel. But it's expensive, and must be used wisely. This was not a wise use. A wise use would have been to engage the opposition rather than to hunker down.

One very large cause of all of this is that the same people have been running AMSAT for a very long time, and it becomes an echo chamber after a while - the us-vs-them mentality of the board vs. the opposition - but really the board vs. everyone else - becomes self-reinforcing.

This is obviously wrong for the organization. The solution is simple, and every organization needs it: *regular turn-over of the people in the organization's leadership. *Not the stratification that we currently have.

You can fix this by electing more new blood to the board.

 Thanks

 Bruce

Bruce,

How is electing more new blood going to resolve anything, from a practical standpoint? That's like saying "well, just throw 4 new engineers at a problem and that will help us solve it in the next few months". Engineering problems don't scale that way, and interpersonal ones, definitely don't (ref: marriage). Maybe there will be more people that will be agreeable and provide a positive perception but that can't be confused with organizational competence and productivity. And don't get me wrong here, i'm not saying anyone is innocent or guilty of any particular action in the past, because I didn't sit in meetings where anything that has been discussed on this thread had actually occurred, but I know that throwing new people at a problem isn't necessarily the best answer (democracy or not).

That being said, the whole 'us vs them' talking point, seems like a recent development per my personal experience and it actually makes my blood boil a little. Maybe others have had different experiences, but being co-located near several AMSAT members and having developed personal relationships with several of them, both locally and abroad , this really hurts. And it hurts a lot. Because I witnessed almost 0 'us vs them' over anything through the ARISSat days (2008 - 2011) and tapering off through 2018. No-one I knew was bickering about anything except awkward bb-posts, shipping dates, machining, assembling, testing and maybe putting together a teach-in... The technical / development emails I was on were full of interactions of software devs, hardware devs, etc... From crimping and soldering pins, to literally building a vacuum chamber and hermetically sealed feed-throughs for it. I remember even sending one engineer some gyros I had around my shack because they had a hard time procuring some. Oh, and these may not be found on any AMSAT invoice because I didn't charge AMSAT for them (or the shipping!), just did it to help the team out because the people were awesome. They invested their free time and worked so damn hard for the love of the game, it's insane really. I witnessed the polar opposite characterization of AMSAT and the board. To me, it was always the best and brightest, incredibly active, caring and hard-working group of people that spent most of their free cycles volunteering to the development of the craft or mentoring others. I saw nothing but good people, absolutely amazing engineers and role models. I have nothing but good to say of the organization, I feel indebted to it in many ways and really would like to see it flourish in the ways that I was able to benefit from it. In fact, so-much-so, that I became a life member in 2018. That may not be a huge financial decision to others but it sure was to me at the time.

I can't speak to the good-old-days of AMSAT, because I wasn't alive at the time. I am really more of a recent, modern, techie, transient, in terms of HAM/AMSAT history. But from my observations, the results of ARISSat-1 and AMSAT-Fox(es) are reasonably incredible, given the logistics, individual life circumstances and all the rest. The architecture, the modularity of the stack, the coordination for the launches, the people making it happen, and Getting It Done. Maybe i'm just easily impressed by simple engineering things but it's really hard to argue with Results. And with so many satellite failures out there, it is rather impressive!

Maybe there are interpersonal problems, but if you're going to sit here any bash the board... really? They, and everyone underneath them (who likely didn't have every-single-cent-approved-for-every-single-receipt), are just getting stuff done. When it comes to organizations like this, as a wise man once told me at an AMSAT Symposium "it takes all kinds". And though, you may not necessarily agree with those kinds in the moment, most of them really just want to hack and produce something cool. Unfortunately, the world doesn't always make that easy and they need to operate within their provided constraints. And also unfortunately, the world will only ever focus on the bad and ignore all the good.

Joseph Armbruster KJ4JIO

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:19 PM Bruce Perens via AMSAT-BB [email protected] wrote:

Most of you are members of AMSAT. IMO the organization has some serious problems, and as members it is your duty to steer the organization with your votes. That means that you should remain aware of what is going on and you should make an informed vote. The satellite discussions go on, mostly uninterrupted, all year. A short break for politics is not unreasonable, and acrimonious discussion is to be expected when we take that break.

Organisations are run by people who would not be doing the work if they did not have strong emotions about it. And they all have their own failings. Unfortunately, volunteer non-profit directors (and many public ones in big corporations) never learn a critical skill of democracy: *how to deal properly with opposition. *That is the root of what we are arguing about now. Opposition are not the enemy! Yet, they are clearly being treated as such. They are simply people who would reform the organization or take it in a different direction from the incumbents.

In this case, Michelle and Patrick, before they were elected, were the loyal opposition - dedicated to a better organization, and deeply troubled by the decisions and conduct of the incumbent board. The incumbent's response was not to work with the opposition, but to hunker down and use lawyers. To the incumbent's great distress, the very same people got sent to the board by the membership! Leading to more lawyers. IMO the incumbents should have read this as a signal from the membership, rather than doubling down their resistance.

The sad reality is that the newly-elected directors have never been allowed to function as directors. You should be concerned, since they are the people whom you elected to represent you. The main means used to disable your elected representatives has been refusal by the incumbents to hold board meetings. This refusal is almost total, with exactly *one* meeting being held after the organization's annual convention.

The second means used to disenfranchise the newly-elected directors was that the incumbents withheld information which a director would generally be expected to have access to. As it happened, this information was at least in part discussion of those very same people, and contracting of legal counsel in a process against them.

Every board has the right to legal counsel. But it's expensive, and must be used wisely. This was not a wise use. A wise use would have been to engage the opposition rather than to hunker down.

One very large cause of all of this is that the same people have been running AMSAT for a very long time, and it becomes an echo chamber after a while - the us-vs-them mentality of the board vs. the opposition - but really the board vs. everyone else - becomes self-reinforcing.

This is obviously wrong for the organization. The solution is simple, and every organization needs it: *regular turn-over of the people in the organization's leadership. *Not the stratification that we currently have.

You can fix this by electing more new blood to the board.

Thanks

Bruce

-- Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-) _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb