[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
jim
jim at well.com
Mon Mar 1 02:35:39 UTC 2010
* i know mitch and think he'd be fine.
* i don't know mikolaj, at least not to associate the
name with a person (i'm bad at that generally).
* i hadn't know lief was a candidate. i believe i
know him well enough to judge: i think he'd be fine.
please name any other candidates.
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 15:39 -0800, 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>
> 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>> 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>> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Sai Emrys
>
> > <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>>
> 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>
> >
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list