[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[Kelly]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 14:53, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Actually, I think that it IS the case that there is no better option
for the organization.  We already had the standard 1 week of
consideration to consense on Mitch, and it's unfortunate that you
didn't bring up your concerns during that time.  As it was, I think
that most of us felt that Mitch was the natural choice, and that we
had no further need to discuss it.

> 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.

I don't actually think that, and I haven't gotten that impression from
the discussion either. It seems that there are other reasonable
choices but that most people feel that Mitch is the best choice.
Insofar as we've been without an ED since October, although that
doesn't mean we need to decide immediately, I do think that if we have
a candidate that everyone feels would do well that we should go
forward with that option and discuss the details of the bylaws
afterward.  I feel totally confident that whatever we define Mitch's
position to be, he will be capable of doing it.

> 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.

I don't actually think that this is about antagonizing those not
supporting Mitch (and as far as I can tell, everyone supports
Mitch--even yourself).  I haven't seen any objections to other
candidates--it's just that we don't have a whole lot to say about
them.  Mikolaj would be a perfectly adequate ED, I just feel that
Mitch is a better choice.  Actually, I basically feel that way about
everyone.  For me, the deciding factor that makes me support Mitch and
which makes me feel hesitant about other candidates is that I've seen
Mitch in a position of authority at Noisebridge (as treasurer) and I
am confident that he will not abuse that authority.  As such, I don't
think I would want to see anyone as ED who hadn't already served in
some position of authority at NB and demonstrated their ability to not
exercise it.  I think the only other candidates I would consider are
Jake, Seth and Rachel.

I do agree though that this situation has created a hostile
environment, but I don't think that it's directed at potential
candidates, or those not supporting Mitch (empty set).  I think it's
directed at you.  And that's definitely unfortunate.  I agree that you
as a member have a right to block and a right to express your opinion,
but I'm confused as to why you're conflating those two.

It seems that while you think that another person might be better, you
agree that Mitch is a fine candidate and don't think any harm would
come from electing him.  It also seems like you are very concerned
about the process by which we "elect" our officials, and the
relationship between their actual duties and those stated in the
bylaws or implied by them.  I agree with you on the latter.  I am
disappointed that you haven't set a date for this supposed
subcommittee to discuss revising the bylaws.  I think that you're
using your block to hold this decision hostage because you want to
force us to address your concerns about the process.  What confuses me
is why you're not then going ahead with addressing those concerns, as
the group encouraged you to do, by forming a subcommittee.

In the meantime, I think that people view your continued blocking of
the consensus as selfish and controlling, because we'd all just like
to get on with electing Mitch, and we feel that the subcommittee
option, as well as this extensive discussion thread and the active
nomination of other members does plenty to address your concerns.

-Kelly