<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Christie Dudley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:longobord@gmail.com" target="_blank">longobord@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
My issues with Mitch are fairly minor. </blockquote></div><div><br>I'll quote this again:<div class="im"><br> "Blocks are generally considered to be an extreme measure, only used
when a member feels a proposal "endanger[s] the organization or its
participants, or violate[s] the mission of the organization" (i.e., a
principled objection). In some consensus models, a group member
opposing a proposal must work with its proponents to find a solution
that will work for everyone.:" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making</a>)<br><br></div>If you don't feel that Mitch will endanger the organization, maybe you should stand aside:<br>
"A "stand aside" may be registered by a group
member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but
is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a
motion, it is often regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of
group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to
the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel
they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the
proposal."(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making</a>)<br> </div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I think he's a great person, but he's not terribly involved in the immediate Noisebridge community. He's just not around much and doesn't keep abreast of the breadth of totally excellent things going on at Noisebridge, or the ongoing needs of the organization. <div>
<div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>Is this the job of the ED? I don't think it is. Beside that, have you asked him what is currently going on at Noisebridge? I know that I see him at 2169 about as much as I see anyone else, and he usually knows what the various groups are up to.<br>
<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div>In addition to the 'representational' part that Vlad brought up (can he represent us well if he doesn't know us well?) It is the ED's job to call the board meetings, set the agenda and preside. I think Rachel has been doing a fine job of this so far, but it's not her job. (Legally, according to the bylaws) I'd really like to see an ED who can do the job, who understands when board meetings are needed and will make that happen.</div>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br>According to policy of Noisebridge, the board's job, as well as the ED's, is to execute the will of the membership. If the ED is calling meetings without being told to by the membership I would be concerned. The ED's job is to rubber stamp the will of the membership, and sign documents.<br>
</div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>
<div><br></div><div><div><div>I think Mitch could do a fair job of muddling through if there were no other candidates. But there are other candidates who are much more capable of doing a good job with what little is required of them. It appalls me that we have to have the choice of the board as our only option, especially when it's not the best one.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't understand why this discussion keeps coming back to Mitch/Not Mitch. I thought it was the will of the members to decide who. Why are we not comparing Mitch/Mikolaj/whoever? This false dichotomy is killing serious consideration of the candidates.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div>
<div><br></div><div>We already decided at the meeting this coming week that we would *not* try to form a consensus on the candidates for ED, but rather narrow it down to one to consense on next week. WHY do we keep coming back to this whole false dichotomy?</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>
<br>
Are there other candidates that most of the membership knows, and
likes? You are the only dissenting voice that we have heard, so the rest of the
membership is trying to figure out why. You keep saying that nobody is
addressing your concerns, and is just attacking you, but I feel that we are trying to figure out what you feel strongly enough about to block. Blocking is
supposed to only be used as a last resort for something that you feel
will harm the organization. You have said that your objections are minor, and your main issue is that someone may be better. That means addressing your concerns will enable the membership to achieve consensus.<br></div><br>
</div>
</div><br>