Perhaps I sound argumentative because I feel that this is beating a dead horse and legalizing things that don't need rules. To the reader who hasn't followed this discussion, would lead one to believe that people actually did things that didn't happen. <br>
<br>I don't consider this discussion productive but to the contrary, it calls people to doubt the motivations of well-intentioned people.<br><br>Christie<br clear="all">--- <br>Why I take the road less traveled? Oh, that's easy. I'm claustrophobic.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:38 PM, jim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim@well.com">jim@well.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
christie, do i correctly read an argumentative tone<br>
in your response?<br>
i was not discussing consensus nor how we as a group<br>
might go about accepting a 501(c)3 donation. as to my<br>
contributions to the thread, the subject might better<br>
be changed to something like "what kinds of topics<br>
demand open information." note i have not suggested any<br>
standards, only something that might be characterized<br>
as policy or "good form". i wrote definitions hoping<br>
just to be clear as to my intent (i've repeatedly<br>
gotten the sense that people were not responding to<br>
what i was trying to get across).<br>
<br>
i have no idea what are the facts of any possible deal<br>
with monkeybrains or the city, just that...<br>
<br>
...if deals are in the planning stages, and if the deals<br>
may have an effect on noisebridge as a whole, then before<br>
action is taken it seems right to me that people open up<br>
and share the details with any of us who might be<br>
interested. that's the only point i've been trying to<br>
make.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 14:55 -0800, Christie Dudley wrote:<br>
> I changed the subject line to reflect the true nature of this<br>
> discussion because we've extended well beyond the realm of anything<br>
> that's listed in there.<br>
><br>
> Comments interpsersed.<br>
> ---<br>
> Why I take the road less traveled? Oh, that's easy. I'm<br>
> claustrophobic.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM, jim <<a href="mailto:jim@well.com">jim@well.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> my comments interspersed...<br>
> JS: seems worthy of examination. my opinion:<br>
> people inviting their friends to join NB seems not a case of<br>
> "in<br>
> the name of noisebridge". setting up a partnership or customer<br>
> relation with another entity does. (just for clarity, anything<br>
> a<br>
> member does to hack something, perform, create, etc., is done<br>
> personally; NB provides a venue in which people can do their<br>
> things.)<br>
><br>
><br>
> How about interacting with the press? What about representing<br>
> Noisebridge in a formal context such as at events or conventions?<br>
> These are far more important to the well-being of Noisebridge than<br>
> committing to pay the power bill. Although we have been pretty lax by<br>
> your standards in discussing trash service. Do we really need to have<br>
> a consensus vote and hash that out at meetings? I mean, I never even<br>
> heard a competing bid.<br>
><br>
> That being said, for the monkeybrains service we have committed to<br>
> nothing. I don't think it's sinking in with most people that we have<br>
> not agreed to do, pay, or be anything FOR Monkeybrains. This is<br>
> neither a partnership nor a customer relationship. They're simply<br>
> giving us bandwidth. Andy donated the gear. (Thanks Andy!) No<br>
> agreement == no commitment. So this situation would not apply even by<br>
> your own criteria.<br>
><br>
><br>
> JS: accepting a donation may or may not be "in the name of<br>
> noisebridge". people bring by tools, equipment, materials,<br>
> and general crap. mostly these are just dumped in the space,<br>
> maybe neatly. these are not "in the name of" nor "on behalf<br>
> of" noisebridge in any significant sense.<br>
> Note that as NB is a 501(c)3 corporation, in the case of<br>
> donations by parties declaring their donations as 501(c)3<br>
> deductions on their tax statements, NB is bound by some<br>
> restrictions as to what we can do with the donations: we<br>
> can't just sell them, nor can we turn them over to one or<br>
> more members as their new personal toys. it's unlikely<br>
> but possible that the IRS or some other entity may want to<br>
> audit the donors and verify by inspection that NB has not<br>
> violated our legal restraints. in the case that NB no longer<br>
> wants a donation, dispersal must be done within legal bounds.<br>
> there may be costs NB has to incur, for example for some<br>
> donation that requires a lot of power to run, or something<br>
> that must have natural gas (NB may have to incur costs of<br>
> running gas lines), or there may be known safety hazards<br>
> that require some kind of improvement or that are disallowed<br>
> by the coding ordinances for this building....<br>
><br>
> You raise all very good points here. It's important for someone who<br>
> brings something into the space to recognize how it will impact<br>
> everyone else in the space. I disagree that it's necessary to send<br>
> every donation to consensus to determine this. I expect each person<br>
> who considers bringing something into the space to be excellent and<br>
> consider the impact they have on the other members and guests.<br>
><br>
> Take the DIYBio fridge for example. Assume it was donated. It was<br>
> brought into the space without consideration for how it would impact<br>
> the space. We did not have room for it, and there was no<br>
> understanding of what it was and why it was in the middle of the<br>
> space. It impacted other people, particularly those who's shelves it<br>
> blocked.<br>
><br>
> JS: i don't think we're so bad. we've had some email<br>
> wildfires,<br>
> but seems to me things have simmered down reasonably well in<br>
> previous cases, and tho' a lot of us get bored or frustrated<br>
> with the volume, the air does get a good clearing.<br>
><br>
> I have to say I disagree here. There are a number of good projects<br>
> that came and went because of silly speculation over how they impacted<br>
> the space. Take Deep Crack, for example. This is a monumental<br>
> historical piece of hardware in the hacking world that members wanted<br>
> to run a workshop with. Although it posed no real threat to anyone,<br>
> the donation was withdrawn because of continued speculation over<br>
> imagined hazards.<br>
><br>
> Summary: "in the name of noisebridge" means noisebridge incurs<br>
> some legal or financial other formal obligation.<br>
> "on behalf of noisebridge" means that noisebridge incurs some<br>
> spatial or labor or cost responsibility.<br>
> if the implications of members' actions have insignificant<br>
> affect in either regard, we're an anarchistic do-ocracy that<br>
> deprecates labels.<br>
><br>
> my opinion, of course.<br>
><br>
> Wow, this is getting awfully lawyerly. Are you sure we need to get<br>
> things nailed down to that level of detail and verbiage? It'll all be<br>
> lost in a year once we forget this discussion unless we have some sort<br>
> of enforcement regime, which I'm completely opposed to.<br>
><br>
> I'd rather just people be excellent to each other, which means being<br>
> mindful of their impact on others in the space.<br>
><br>
> Oh, and by the way, as a matter of law, the only people who can enter<br>
> Noisebridge into any sort of a legally binding thing are officers (not<br>
> directors) so that's Jake, Jeffrey and Seth. Unless one of these<br>
> people have to be involved in order to commit us to anything.<br>
><br>
> Christie<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>