<div dir="ltr">Mitch, I will address your three points:<div><br></div><div>* "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The only way to change that process is for a consensus on a proposal to change it." This is not true. This is also not what Naomi is arguing. The bylaws that Noisebridge has always had say nothing about consensus. The previous boards have all simply deferred to consensus for their decisions. The membership elected a board that would take an active role because Noisebridge's problems were getting out of hand. Danny O'Brien, who by all means is deeply in favor consensus and against majority voting for NB, will agree with me: he's the one who told me if I wanted to change away from consensus I should get a pro-voting majority on the board to change it.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">* Your second point is backwards. The previous boards rubber stamp consensus decisions because the previous board directors deferred to consensus. This is why the bylaws don't say consensus but do say majority.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">* All three of your points seem to be saying "The board can't change consensus, only the membership can" three different times.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Mitch, I'll ask you the same question that I'm asking others: Do you personally think Noisebridge's bylaws are valid and need to be followed? Or do you think the bylaws are optional? Or something else?</span></div>
<div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Mitch Altman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maltman23@hotmail.com" target="_blank">maltman23@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Whether you (personally) like consensus process, or not, this is a fact:<br>
Noisebridge is an organization that has made its decisions with consensus since its inception.<br>
<br>
* The only way to change that process is for a consensus on a proposal to change it. That proposal was not consensed upon if Naomi was not part of the process.<br>
<br>
* Furthermore, according to the way Noisebridge was formed (and has run for its entire life), the Noisebridge board is merely a rubberstamp for the consensus of the membership. And the Noisebridge membership did not consense upon this proposal.<br>
<br>
* The board cannot take it upon itself to change something that effects the entire membership without consensus of the membership.<br>
<br>
All of these points need to be addressed.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mitch.<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a><br>
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:28:52 -0700<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] this is what cognitive dissonance looks like<br>
><br>
> Al is making such a huge deal out of this "it's really hard to work<br>
> with 4 other people," coordinating schedules, etc.<br>
><br>
> And yet Al was an immediate proponent for the internal board proposal<br>
> that "proposals must be discussed and voted on within 24 hours".<br>
><br>
> Cognitive dissonance.<br>
><br>
> There is also the bald FACT that none of the 4 even attempted to<br>
> contact me while they were all gleefully preparing this monstrous<br>
> proposal.<br>
><br>
> The careful reader will note that no one, not any of the board, has<br>
> asserted that I could have read the proposal online (it wasnt there<br>
> until the very day it was voted on), nor do they claim that I was<br>
> called, or emailed about this. That is because, to their credit, they<br>
> are not liars.<br>
><br>
> I am 20% of the board membership, systematically left out of a major --<br>
> MAJOR -- highly controversial discussion about several fundamental<br>
> changes to Noisebridge policy. Even leaving aside the probable<br>
> inapporpriateness of a 3/5 majority in such deep and far-reaching<br>
> matters, this is basically systematic discrimination, which Al is<br>
> continuing to defend by saying "we all voted for it."<br>
><br>
> Al continues to put forth the argument that "Naomi is trying to<br>
> overturn the will of the board with a single vote" while also admitting<br>
> the entire process was problematic, and agreeing -- in writing -- that<br>
> we should do this over.<br>
><br>
> Cognitive. Dissonance.<br>
><br>
> We agreed to talk this over at the board meeting, coming up Wednesday.<br>
> But now I am not sure I even trust that this will be a rational<br>
> conversation.<br>
><br>
> --Naomi<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Al Sweigart<br>
> <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> The keyword there in your sentence is "should". But the bylaws are<br>
> specific about what constitutes a quorum: a majority of the directors.<br>
> And I disagree, it is difficult to coordinate five specific people with<br>
> five busy schedules.<br>
><br>
> From this email:<br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043125.html" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043125.html</a><br>
><br>
> "Disregard. The board has, in fact, not "agreed" on these changes,<br>
> because they were never discussed."<br>
><br>
> Spinach, at this point I kind of expect an accusation of me<br>
> editorializing from you, but a single-worded dismissal of every other<br>
> board member's vote on a matter strikes me as saying her vote could<br>
> effectively override everyone else's. When the bylaws say a measure<br>
> requires a majority is needed to pass and a majority (heck, a<br>
> super-majority) votes for it, we didn't feel it was a stretch to say it<br>
> had passed.<br>
><br>
> Spinach, just to clarify, do you think the bylaws of Noisebridge are<br>
> the rules that Noisebridge should follow?<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:42 AM, spinach williams<br>
> <<a href="mailto:spinach.williams@gmail.com" target="_blank">spinach.williams@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:spinach.williams@gmail.com" target="_blank">spinach.williams@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> On Thursday, March 27, 2014 09:34:07 AM Al Sweigart wrote:<br>
>> Naomi, I will talk to the board about reverting the proposals, we can<br>
>> discuss them online, and then discuss them at the next board meeting. But<br>
>> if we have a quorum<br>
> when there are five people, quorum should be five. it's not difficult to<br>
> coordinate five people.<br>
><br>
>>her first instinct was to<br>
>> immediately state that her vote can override the votes of every other other<br>
>> board member, and I thought that rolling back the proposals would be<br>
>> endorsing a claim to veto power over everything the board does<br>
> when did this happen? can you find a quote?<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________ Noisebridge-discuss<br>
> mailing list <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>