[Noisebridge-discuss] articles of incorporation submitted today

[Asheesh Laroia]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, grey wrote:

> Keep in mind, that on our wiki the intent for the group as a whole is to 
> also reduce any potential liability that may reach the board members or 
> lease signers (not that they need to be the same, but they are in this 
> case).  I think you are treating the people who are here to be in your 
> court with disrespect by not returning the goodwill that the rest of us 
> are expected to give you.

I personally am really not very interested in discussions about what kinds 
of liability the lease signers, who are doing it as a temporary thing, 
expected or are comfortable with in this temporary space.  I don't really 
see why it's all that interesting to other people - by not incorporating 
yet, they're in an unexpected position that will not repeat itself in the 
future history of this organization.

So if those people feel weird because they're in a weird spot, and they 
seem to act weird as a result, that's okay.  Let's just get everyone on 
dry land and in an incorporated Noisebridge and we'll all immediately seem 
totally reasonable.

> I also really don't appreciate insinuating statements like "though they 
> weren't all people I know."  There are lots of people within Noisebridge 
> we all know and don't know, and to imply some level of inherent distrust 
> as a result of that is demeaning.  I can't say I know you well either, 
> but from what I do, and judging by how you've been treating this 
> situation I'd recommend you steer far clear of any ad hominem attacks.

This paragraph is the real reason I replied to your mail.

I'm not someone who knows David well, and I didn't take this as 
"insinuating."  I took it as a good-faith statement that he was treating 
all Noisebridgees equally, to mean something like, "I'm happy with all 
these people getting keys, not just the ones I already know."

So for me, that sentence in David's mail made me like him more.

> Here we are, on Friday, with a weekend ahead of us and people
> motivated to get work done.  We need to strike while the iron is hot
> and get things moving as fluidly as we can for our members as
> possible.  Andy and Jake have been doing an exceptional job at being
> in the space as much as possible to allow work to proceed, but to be
> held at the schedules and whims of the 'keyholders.'  It is one thing
> to be held at the whims of the bureaucracy that is holding up the
> process of incorporation, but to hold up our own paying members in the
> interim is preposterous.

Well, we don't have members yet, and Jake made it clear that people who 
paid early get nothing for that.  I admit I'm not one of those people 
right now (although I may yet join those ranks).

> Anyone with life experience realizes that it unfolds in unexpected
> ways, who would expect that after months and months suddenly in less
> than a week we have a space and a marked jump in interest and
> participation from good intelligent creative people to whom you are
> providing quite the litany of excuses despite remaining unheard on
> Tuesday over this issue.  I understand there was a lot of shouting at
> times, but consensus on interim _temporary_ key distribution was not
> one of those.

If we really believe people are acting in bad faith, then let's improve 
the process.  That way, we will have a process that is impeccable, and 
then it will be clear to everyone that the bad-faithers are acting as 
such.  Or if they don't act in bad faith with the improved process, we 
will just have an awesome process and have everyone be happy.

Thefore I suggest that we be Extremely Clear (as discussed elsewhere) 
about our consensus-reaching process in the future, and not get too wound 
up by our first meeting not being a total success.  I'm still pretty happy 
with how this first meeting in the space went, and the general success of 
the consensus process and of us finding the space and of us having lots of 
excited people in it.

Yay Noisebridge having a space!  Yay happy people with future clear 
processes!  Yay proposals for better ways to run meetings!

> So I'm going to propose an agenda item for Tuesday, and I'm sure it will 
> be addressed in the board meeting you will be attending prior to that. 
> In two parts, one - how do we allow for access to the space in the 
> soonest possible manner to all members.  And secondly, how do we address 
> this kind of dissent and disagreement from our members (let alone board 
> members) from a consensus process after the fact.  Is that enough of a 
> heads up for you?

I look forward to that conversation!  I think it'll be fun and helpful.

I'm still happy about this whole project, even with the discussion in this 
thread.

In loving embrace of us Noisebridgees,

-- Asheesh.

P.S. Working on that phone, I promise.

P.P.S. I see us as "Noisebridgees" because this hacker space will bridge 
us all to noise — namely, each other.

-- 
 	"You boys lookin' for trouble?"
 	"Sure.  Whaddya got?"
 		-- Marlon Brando, "The Wild Ones"