[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[John Magolske]

* Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com> [100228 12:08]:
> There's no reason not to just renominate Mitch... but no one has even
> tried to change my mind, other than by telling me flat out I'm wrong.
> It's not been very persuasive and pretty much people have only been mean
> to me for standing up for what I believe in.

My understanding is that the concern that Mitch wouldn't be suitable
for the exec-d position has to do with the fact that he tends to
be out of town a lot. I tried to respond to this in a thoughtful,
reasoned way that was IMO free of malice [1]. Jim's recent post [2]
also seems well-put. It would be great to hear a likewise thoughtful
response to any of the points made in these posts. It would also be
helpful for the benefit of those of us not present at last week's
meeting to understand your objection(s) to Mitch being nominated.

John

----

[1] * John Magolske <listmail at b79.net> [100227 09:03]:
> ...one thing that came up in conversation at 2169 last night is that
> the objection here has to do with Mitch being out of town a lot. To
> that I would like to respond that his travels have him circulating
> primarily in the hacker-space/maker community world-wide. So, to the
> extent the exec-d is an ambassador, I feel he'd be a good match.
> I also really appreciate the genuine enthusiasm he brings to the
> endeavor. I know we state that the exec-d carries no "power" etc.,
> but to some extent this is a public-facing position, and as such I
> feel Mitch would be a totally reasonable choice. He also did a great
> job as treasurer.

[2] * jim <jim at well.com> [100228 10:14]:
>    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.


-- 
John Magolske
http://B79.net/contact