<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Al is making such a huge deal out of this "it's really hard to work with 4 other people," coordinating schedules, etc. </div><div><br></div><div>And yet Al was an immediate proponent for the internal board proposal that "proposals must be discussed and voted on within 24 hours". </div><div><br></div><div>Cognitive dissonance. </div><div><br></div><div>There is also the bald FACT that none of the 4 even attempted to contact me while they were all gleefully preparing this monstrous proposal. </div><div><br></div><div>The careful reader will note that no one, not any of the board, has asserted that I could have read the proposal online (it wasnt there until the very day it was voted on), nor do they claim that I was called, or emailed about this. That is because, to their credit, they are not liars. </div><div><br></div><div>I am 20% of the board membership, systematically left out of a major -- MAJOR -- highly controversial discussion about several fundamental changes to Noisebridge policy. Even leaving aside the probable inapporpriateness of a 3/5 majority in such deep and far-reaching matters, this is basically systematic discrimination, which Al is continuing to defend by saying "we all voted for it."</div><div><br></div><div>Al continues to put forth the argument that "Naomi is trying to overturn the will of the board with a single vote" while also admitting the entire process was problematic, and agreeing -- in writing -- that we should do this over. </div><div><br></div><div>Cognitive. Dissonance. </div><div><br></div><div>We agreed to talk this over at the board meeting, coming up Wednesday. But now I am not sure I even trust that this will be a rational conversation. </div><div><br></div><div>--Naomi</div><div><br><br></div><div><br>On Mar 27, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">The keyword there in your sentence is "should". But the bylaws are specific about what constitutes a quorum: a majority of the directors. And I disagree, it is difficult to coordinate five specific people with five busy schedules.<div>
<br></div><div>From this email: <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></div>
<div><br>
</div><div>"Disregard. The board has, in fact, not "agreed" on these changes, because they were never discussed."</div><div><br></div><div>Spinach, at this point I kind of expect an accusation of me editorializing from you, but a single-worded dismissal of every other board member's vote on a matter strikes me as saying her vote could effectively override everyone else's. When the bylaws say a measure requires a majority is needed to pass and a majority (heck, a super-majority) votes for it, we didn't feel it was a stretch to say it had passed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Spinach, just to clarify, do you think the bylaws of Noisebridge are the rules that Noisebridge should follow?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:42 AM, spinach williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spinach.williams@gmail.com" target="_blank">spinach.williams@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>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>
</div>when there are five people, quorum should be five. it's not difficult to<br>
coordinate five people.<br>
<div><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>
</div>when did this happen? can you find a quote?<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a></span><br><span><a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>