[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Rachel McConnell
rachel at xtreme.com
Mon Mar 1 00:08:35 UTC 2010
Apparently because nearly everyone is happy with Mitch.
Christie Dudley wrote:
> What about the other candidates?
>
> Who has thoughts on Mikolaj?
>
> Who has thoughts on Lief?
>
> Why aren't we talking about anyone but 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/
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com
> <mailto:rachel at xtreme.com>> wrote:
>
> Christie, here are some thoughts I had regarding your position on Mitch
> as ED.
>
> I understand why you would object to an 'absentee' ED. I posit to you
> that there are significant benefits as well. Noisebridge has an
> extraordinarily rich interaction with other hackerspaces (and generally
> cool people) *worldwide*, due primarily to our roving ambassadors, Jake
> and Mitch. We've got relationships with hackers not only in Chicago,
> Toronto, Atlanta, etc in North America, but also in Germany and Japan,
> and probably others I'm not yet aware of.
>
> Have you asked Mitch if his schedule will continue to be that he's gone
> a great deal of the time? It may be that he'll be around more in 2010,
> which would allow him to keep more abreast of the activities of the
> organization.
>
> To address your issue further: regarding keeping abreast of the ongoing
> needs of the organization, we've been pretty clear that this is not
> actually the business of the ED, but of the members. The ED is *not*
> our leader. I believe you might respond to this that the ED is
> perceived as such by outsiders, and I would respond to that with, how
> does that cause a problem for us?
>
> Rachel
>
> Christie Dudley wrote:
> > My issues with Mitch are fairly minor. 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ani Niow <v at oneletterwonder.com
> <mailto:v at oneletterwonder.com>
> > <mailto:v at oneletterwonder.com <mailto:v at oneletterwonder.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to formally re-nominate Mitch for the position of the
> > Executive Director of Noisebridge.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Ani
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Malone
> > <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com <mailto:ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>
> <mailto:ieatlint at tehinterweb.com <mailto:ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Sai Emrys
> > <noisebridge at saizai.com <mailto:noisebridge at saizai.com>
> <mailto:noisebridge at saizai.com <mailto:noisebridge at saizai.com>>> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Andy Isaacson
> > <adi at hexapodia.org <mailto:adi at hexapodia.org>
> <mailto:adi at hexapodia.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> > <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>>
> >
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> > <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>>
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list