[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[jim]

   having read the email threads on this, it seems to 
me that mitch is a good and reasonable choice. 

   i understand the objection was that he travels a 
lot and cannot be available to attend meetings. 
   it seems to me that objection has been met in the 
discussion: meetings are infrequent, scheduling is 
flexible, and attendance by phone or other media is 
acceptable within bylaws. 
   also, it seems that the role of ED is to satisfy 
external requirements for our 501(c)3 status and the 
ED functions for that are few in number and require 
little work. there are a number of NB members who do 
not want the ED to have authority or functions beyond 
the minimum requirements to satisfy 501(c)3 status. 
   the one other possible consideration is that of 
ED as NB spokesperson in a court of law or other 
public inspection. 

   the above is how i understand the discussion so far. 
it seems complete to me and to address the stated 
reason for objection. 
   we have only one person who is visibly willing to 
take on the ED position: mitch. i think mitch is a good 
choice as well as the only choice so far. 



On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 01:00 -0800, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Sai Emrys <noisebridge at saizai.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:
> >> We currently have all of these things.  AFAIK, until the board appoints
> >> a new ED, Jake continues in his appointment from last year.
> >
> > That's my reading as well. Officers serve until replaced; Board
> > members have terms of office.
> >
> 
> Actually, you have that kind of backwards.
> Both have terms -- 1 year.  Board members remain in office until they
> are replaced.
> There is no such clause for officers.  Our bylaws state that they must
> be appointed annually, and as the year ran up at the beginning of
> October, so did the term for all three officer positions.
> 
> Noisebridge has been without an ED since October.  This has been
> stated at a board meeting and a general meeting.
> In fact, two board members even tried to simply appoint an ED at the
> last board meeting to "fix" this.  They even planned to do so without
> consulting the members before conceding to objections that while the
> legal authority exists for them to do that, it runs completely against
> Noisebridge policy.
> 
> 
> 
> In general, I would like to thank all of you for turning this into a
> discussion about what people feel the ED is, and absolutely nothing to
> do with actually selecting a new one.
> You might argue that you feel defining the role is the same thing.
> It's not -- who it is, and what they will be doing are two different
> controversial subjects.  Intertwining them has, as best I can tell,
> resulted in absolutely no progress on either side.
> 
> So any chance this can get back on topic to its original intent of
> nominating people for the ED?  Or should I simply give up?
> 
> Jeffrey
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>