The New York Tech Meetup Election
= Background ===
Scott Heiferman deserves to be commended for his contributions to the New York startup scene. For starters, he did one of the best things anyone could do to help NYC’s image as a startup-freindly city: he built a successful startup here himself. Not just a successful startup, but a great startup focused on making the world a better place. A startup whose central purpose is to use technology to connect people in real life. A startup, surprisingly, with a real, sustainable revenue model. Meetup, along with Jelly, have played an integral role in how I met every single person I know in New York City, as well as my eventual move into the city and the company I now run. I owe them both a lot.
I met Sanford at the New York Tech Meetup, thanks to Mike Lewis’s introduction. When Sanford announced at the end of one of the NYTM events a few months later that he was forming a new coworking community, I showed up— and, along with several other great people, including Nate Westheimer, we set to work around a common passion. And the rest is history.
Scott is extremely passionate about NYC and the startup scene here, and the growing popularity of the NYTM over the past several years is evidence. It’s also an opportunity. With 7,000+ members, the NYTM is the de facto center of the NY Tech Community. Scott was right to recognize the NYTM’s untapped potential and mount an effort to take advantage of that.
Whether this election was the right way to go is an open question. I’ve been on both sides of that question, but I do believe that ultimately this election will help move NYC in the right direction.
= The Meetup Itself ===
One of the most telling facts I’ve encountered about this election is the low turnout of people to tonight’s event. Despite having over 7,000 members and selling out almost instantly month after month, barely 200 people have RSVP’ed for tonight’s event, where we will hear from people who would be the event’s leader.
This is an important indication: outside the circles of people who are passionate about the community, most people probably just want to see five cool new startups each month, and don’t care quite as much about who introduces them or who’s behind it.
It’s important because, as we move forward evolving the meetup, the monthly event itself could suffer from too much change.
As it is, the NYTM is a good thing. It’s not broken. It’s certainly not perfect, and modifications should be explored and made. But carefully, and in measured ways.
Few things would bring me more comfort than to hear a candidate get up and say: “we want to explore changes, but the first NYTM that I organize will remain exactly the same as the Meetup that you know and love. And any changes we intend to make to that setup will be shared with everyone and given time to be discussed.”
= The Organizer ===
Now we get into uncharted territory. Scott didn’t say it very clearly in his announcement, but we are actually electing two things tonight: a person and a platform. The responsiblities of the organizer, and the board, whose selection process is still unclear, have been left up to the candidates themselves to propose.
This makes things sort of complicated. What if we have one person who has a great idea for a platform, but another person who’d be best to execute it?
The next NYTM organizer will have three things at their disposal: a big mailing list, a stage, and a board of leaders. That puts a significant amount of influence in this person’s hands.
This person must be extremely judicious with how they go about handling this responsibility, because this collective influence is a fleeting opportunity.
The importance of this is paramount:
For the NYTM organizer to succeed, they must become an agent of the people in every way possible.
Remember: This is not your Meetup. This is not your community. It’s ours. If you do not embrace that fact, we will go elsewhere, and this opportunity will be lost.
= The Platform ===
Lots of people have proposed lots of changes and additions. There are many good ideas in there, but in my opinion the platform should be exceedingly simple, and should not promise more than what can reasonably be promised at this point in time.
The overarching theme of the platform should respect the fact that this is a new position, and that the organizer will be doing something that not only they have never done before, but no one has ever done before. It will take time for the proper responsibilities of this position to take shape.
The more a candidate tries to manufacture structure and new ideas, the less confident I will be that they understand the above and will hence be best at taking advantage of this opportunity.
I offer below a basic template of a platform I might find attractive, with an emphasis on clarity and simplicity:
1. Monthly Event
- Keep it the same for now
- Offer open discussion about what to change
- Make changes gradually and openly
2. Board
- Meet regularly
- Composed of diverse leaders of different backgrounds
- Broadcast and invite participation from community
3. Facilitation
- Discuss ways to help highlight other resources in the city
- Goal: increase membership and number of NYC-based, tech and entrepreneurship-related Meetups in 2009.
- Include groups both on Meetup.com and off
That’s a decent start, right? Three main points, three bullet points each. There are lots of details and intricacies and complications that should be sorted out, separate from this discussion about the platform, one at a time.
For example: should members vote for which people present each month? Should the organizer be free to choose whom they want to filter out the riffraff? Not a question to answer today. What we want is a leader who is going to let the community decide the best answers to these things, and carefully guide the discussion in a productive, healthy direction.
= Candidates ==
A few of my friends are candidates. They are all good people, and I think they all have the best interests of the community in mind. I’m not going to endorse one person over another, and will support whoever wins. Honestly, I don’t know who would be best for the job, and point on fact, as of this writing, none of us has actually seen everyone present yet.
With that said, I’d like to offer a few thoughts about the candidates I do know. The amount I write about each of them below is roughly proportional to the amount I know them and hence my ability to talk about them:
Sanford Dickert is a good friend, and his influence on coworking in NYC speaks to his ability to facilitate healthy growth by empowering people. New Work City and I are living proof that Sanford can positively influence a community while simultaneously staying away from monopolizing it so it can grow healthily on its own. He gave me what I needed to build what is, in my opinion, a kickass community that is going to continue to do a lot of cool stuff.
After Scott’s announcement, Sanford also did something commendable: he built a public manifesto, to be edited by anyone, and invited everyone to share their perspective. This is the kind of approach the organizer should take when running the whole Meetup.
Sanford is a busy guy, but so should everyone who is running for this position be— would we want to elect someone who had nothing else to do? What makes his candidacy intriguing is his penchant for delegation and for empowering the right people to take responsibility and do what they are best at. The organizer is going to have to pay their bills doing something else, so it will be critical that the organizer be comfortable delegating.
Nate Westheimer’s been a passionate voice for the NYC tech scene for as long as I’ve known him, and I think he understands well that the Organizer’s role should be minimal and should primarily exist to facilitate and stay out of the way. While not a Meetup organizer himself, Nate does have the support of many folks, including some prominent community leaders.
Richie Hecker recently started a Google Group to bring community leaders together and have an open discussion about sharing resources and knowledge. It’s brand new, but looks very promising. Again: open, constructive, and commendable.
Oz Sultan helped build NY Tech’s *other* must-see Tech Meetup, NextWeb. He’s also pretty hilarious.
There are also a lot of people running whom I don’t know. I look forward to hearing their perspectives tonight, and will listen with an open mind. I suggest you do so as well.
= Conclusion ==
The good news is that, no matter what happens tonight, the NY Tech Community will continue to grow and thrive. I harp on the Starfish analogy a lot, but the NY Tech Community is a starfish concept. We are unified in our shared interests, and even if the NYTM collapses and goes away, we will still be here, we will still be passionate, and we will keep doing what we do best.
One of my favorite things about Scott is his patriotism for NYC. As someone who was born in Manhattan, I can relate to this position: NYC is the greatest city in the world, and you can’t really convince me otherwise. It’s in my blood.
Scott believes it, and I believe it, and it’s that drive that will continue to ensure that NYC continues to find itself at the top.
To tonight’s candidates, good luck. Do well by NYC and NYC will do well by you.
If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere :-)
