[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
Ever Falling
everfalling at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 03:11:22 UTC 2010
i think the reason no one is really talking about anyone but Mitch is
because no one else voluntarily threw their hat into this. if they did they
did so upon personal request or upon seeing that there was a request for
greater variety. so far, as much as i can tell, most of the other candidates
seem to have the attitude of 'sure i'll do it' instead of 'i want to do it'.
if it weren't for the fact that you insist that we have more than just one
person to choose from, even though originally no one else was being
nominated or individually putting their hat in, we'd have been over and done
with the whole 'mitch isn't around enough' issue and have moved forward. It
just seems like you compounded what was, at least for everyone else, a
pretty straight forward decision and that even after your minor concerns
have been met multiple times to a reasonable extent you still insist it's
not enough.
i agree that mulling this over on the list is counter to what we all agreed
on last week and that the two week plan of nomination and then consensus
vote should be carried out.
how about this. if you wish for more discussion bout the other candidates
please initiate it. what do you think makes the others a better choice? do
you even think they're better choices? give us a launching point of
discussion instead of complaining no one else is considering everyone else
would rather be done with this a week ago.
also try not to read these replies with a mental tone of hostility because
that isn't at all the indention.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>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
>
>
--
Trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and perpetuates its
existence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100228/05db0f7b/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list