[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[Christie Dudley]

I would be perfectly happy to "stand aside" if we were facing a binary
decision right now and there was no better option for the organization.

This is quite clearly not the case.  I think we do the organization a
disservice by this panic that people seem to be exhibiting.  A week of
careful consideration, discussion of the merits and drawbacks of possible
candidates could do us a great deal of good.

And then next week we can all talk about rallying around or standing back on
the decision for the candidate we arrive at, no?  It's not a huge burden to
talk about other people, is it?

Everyone seems to be panicking that if we don't reach a consensus on Mitch
specifically, we'll never reach a consensus.  Having a detailed discussion
on merits and capabilities of each of the candidates is healthy.  Shutting
down discussion before it even starts cripples us as an organization even
more than discussion that drags on for weeks and months.

At the last meeting, we pretty much came to a consensus that we'll have
exactly one week of discussion on candidates then at the end of the week
select one.  Why is everyone trying to jump to the end and not discuss
anyone except Mitch?

This is also creating a very hostile environment for other candidates.  I
know at this point if I were a candidate and weren't so stubborn, I'd
probably withdraw my name from consideration simply because this has gotten
so accusative for anyone who doesn't support Mitch.

Christie
_______
"We also briefly discussed having officers replaced by very small shell
scripts." -- Noisebridge meeting notes 2008-06-17

The outer bounds is only the beginning.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100228/c6c257db/attachment-0003.html>