<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>I did read your emails very carefully. And this part specifically:</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. </span></div></blockquote></div><div><br><br></div><div>This is the part where you make the presumption that the "2/3's consensus" has been legitimately accepted. This is acting in bad faith, because it is part of that massive overgrown proposal, and what's more it happens to be own stated pet issue to boot. </div><div><br></div><div>I just... you continue to test all credulity in your even having a sense of ethics. </div><div><br></div><div>--Naomi</div><div><br></div><div><br>On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Naomi, please stop accusing me of bad faith EVERY SINGLE TIME that I make a good faith attempt to communicate about things. You've already refused to even discuss your own objections to these policies, but other people might want to air their grievances or comments.<div>
<br></div><div>I wish you would at least read my emails before you jump in with accusations: "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone and are open to change, just as they have always been."</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I started this thread to talk specifically about the "Noisebridge Membership" section, and in your VERY FIRST SENTENCE you derail the conversation with begging the question. It is _very_ frustrating trying to work with you when you act this way.</font></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Naomi Gmail <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Al: why are you acting in bad faith here? </div><div><br></div><div>We agreed as a board to revisit the process by which these policy changes came about in the first place and YOU even proposed reverting them to put these changes through a more legitimized board discussion process.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Why are you putting these discussion items forth as if these changes were already in effect? </div><div><br></div><div>Discuss as hypothetical all you want. I encourage it. Although why you didn't bother doing this /before/ voting on a massive board proposal that /could/ have been broken down into pieces like these is a great mystery.</div>
<div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com" target="_blank">asweigart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div><div dir="ltr">There's a lot of talk on the mailing list about the latest board policies. I'd like to focus on segments individually so that discussion can happen about which parts people agree with an which parts people don't.<div>
<br></div><div>Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone and are open to change, just as they have always been.</div><div>
<br>
</div><div>This thread concerns the "Noisebridge Membership" section on <a href="https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.md" target="_blank">https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.md</a> which reads:</div>
<div><br></div><div>=====</div><div><div>There is one category of Noisebridge membership.</div><div><br></div><div>Noisebridge membership dues are $80 per month. In case of financial hardship, the treasurer may choose to allow a member to pay dues at one half of the normal rate.</div>
</div><div>=====</div><div><br></div><div>My own commentary about this section:</div><div><br></div><div>This is a change from the two-tiered membership that was created by consensus last year. I'm very much in favor of this part: I understand that the two-tiered membership was created because the barrier to becoming a capital-M member was very high, but the concept of a hierarchy of membership has always bothered me.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The dues part is also a change away from optional member dues. This part I'm less enthusiastic about. I know Kevin wanted to roll back the consensus item that created optional dues. My concerns are that 1) I'd prefer if members chose themselves whether or not they paid the "starving hacker" rate instead of the treasurer and 2) I'm okay with mandatory dues for membership but the fact that Noisebridge is members only means that money does technical come into access to the space. (Only technically though, members can brings guests as always and, let's face it, no one really enforces the members-only policy.) I think this is something that could be changed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Any other comments about this section?</div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
<br>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>