[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director
longobord at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 12:58:58 PST 2010
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
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
"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.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ani Niow <v at oneletterwonder.com> wrote:
> I would like to formally re-nominate Mitch for the position of the
> Executive Director of Noisebridge.
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Malone <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Sai Emrys <noisebridge at saizai.com>
>> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org>
>> >> 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?
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss