[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[Rachel McConnell]

Guys, keep up!  Christie elaborated her objections a few emails ago:

https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2010-February/012701.html

jim wrote:
> 
>    as best i can tell, christie has not responded 
> to requests for explanation of her objection to 
> those who weren't there and she has not responded 
> to specific points expressed to meet her objection. 
>    please do so, christie; it would help the 
> discussion a lot; as it is, it seems one-sided 
> (your remark that we're going in circles is right 
> partly because you're not responding to the points). 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 18:34 -0800, Jeff Tchang wrote:
>> I don't seem to understand why this position is causing so much grief?
>>
>> I thought the generally process is that someone stands up and says
>> they want to be ED. Then they campaign as to what they can do above
>> and beyond the normal duties of the ED position as stated. Any
>> objections get voiced and the candidate makes a public response.
>>
>> It seems to me the people that should be doing the most talking should
>> be the people wanting to be ED?
>>
>> -Jeff
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I guess what I'm trying to say is we're spinning around in circles and
>>> nothing is getting resolved.
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong on this:
>>> - Everyone but me is totally happy with Mitch.
>>> - People don't want to think about anyone else, despite my reservations
>>> about Mitch.
>>> Is there anything I'm missing?
>>> 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 6:19 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:51:05AM -0800, Christie Dudley wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> I'm really confused, maybe I just can't parse multiple negatives.  If
>>>> you want Mitch to be ED ("there's no reason not to renominate Mitch")
>>>> then why do we need to change your mind?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I wasn't at the meeting, but I haven't seen any statement of
>>>> what your objections were.  I wasn't even aware that there were any
>>>> objections until this thread started.  Could you explain any of your
>>>> objections for the benefit of those of us who missed the discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -andy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss