[Noisebridge-discuss] articles of incorporation submitted today

[grey]

Noah, as I've said before this is not about the keys but about the
consensus process.  The key situation is a symptom of the problem.  I
am not aware of anyone else who has a misunderstanding that we reached
consensus on Tuesday.  "If the question was asked before we moved on I
did not hear it.  I don't think it was asked though."  I don't want to
turn this into a he-said-she-said debated.  I heard this asked and I
heard consensus, this was recorded, other people heard it as well.  We
all should be abiding by the decisions recorded.  If not, someone
please correct me or correct the record!

To me, the beef I have isn't about keys or comfort or legalities, it's
about honoring the process in which we are attempting to work.  I feel
that you are not honoring it by taking a position counter to Tuesday
evening after the fact, other member witnesses, and not to drag David
through the mud, but the minute keeper as well.

I understand your frustrations and position with regards to signing
the lease and feeling liable until we're incorporated and that this is
hopefully a short lived situation we're in and I empathize with that,
I really do - I am not a lease signer I didn't choose to have that
responsibility.  But as far as I'm concerned that's totally separate
from respecting the process by which the group makes decisions.  If
you have spoken with other people who run successful hacker spaces
(such as our visiting friends from Metalab last week) one of the key
points they will repeat over and over again, taken from the CCC
foundations is that you cannot put all your trust, power and
dependencies in the hands of a few.

In order to establish a 501c3 we need to have a board of directors,
but aside from adhering to the letter of the law, the board of
directors is separate from how a hackerspace can and should be run.

I have to say that the number of times you have brought up the idea
that you have been backstabbed somehow when you don't seem to
empathize with the members who feel precisely that way after seeing
the after-the-fact dissent from Tuesday's meeting is perplexing.
However, repeatedly saying that should people ask you to resign
repeatedly both here and on the board list is absolutely confounding.

I think putting that decision in someone else's hands while on the one
hand appearing to make you look like a martyr taking an "unpopular
stance" while not acknowledging it is your personal stance is really
more of a manipulation tactic seeing if someone will call your bluff.
Believe me, I'd rather call you on it and put the responsibility of
your decisions back on your shoulders instead of trying to foist it on
others and assume tacit approval in the face of so much outright
disagreement.  I would say if you don't want to change your position
on how we come to consensus as a group and honor the ramifications
entailed by that, then yes you should step off the board or remove
yourself from the lease or whatever it is that you think would make
you comfortable.  But you know what?  It's not my call!  We are
supposed to work as a group and I doubt there would be consensus about
doing that, and I wouldn't feel right asking for it on my own any more
than I feel you or Rachel have a right to be blockers on your own as
you are doing in this situation.

Remember, waiting around for incorporation is not the hot button issue
for me, treating our consensus process with respect is: as you put it
yourself, "I have just seen many months of us always thinking that our
incorporation was anywhere from days to hours away from completion,
and so far, for many reasons, we've always been wrong."  Currently we
think next week we will be incorporated, but I sure hope that none of
us will be sitting on our hands and I hope we won't continue
tolerating alternate forms of decision making in the interim.

I take the concept of consent very seriously and I don't want you or
any other member to feel like you're doing something you're not
comfortable with.  But consent and consensus are a two way street, and
currently your actions are being taken in violation of the consent of
the rest of the members who did reach consensus Tuesday evening and we
even believed that you were part of that as well.  You seem to fail to
acknowledge that violation as anything more than inconveniencing the
rest of us hoping it will blow over due to outside forces beyond your,
my or any of the other members' control.  Please take this very
seriously and realize that you are expected to be held to the same
standards that the rest of us are, and that currently you are not
adhering to them.  So stand by it all you want, but realize that it is
YOUR position and not the position of consensus.

-grey

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Noah Balmer <noahbalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand that many people have a different perception of this situation
> than I do, but what I wrote before is what I recall, and I stand by it.  The
> only key-related call for consensus I heard was about getting electronic
> locks.  It's possible, or even likely considering how many people seem to
> think a different consensus was reached, that I misunderstood some part of
> the proceedings, but I know I voiced objections that were never addressed.
>
> If I was trying to exert unfair influence over the group I wouldn't do it by
> taking an upopular position.  I'm fully aware that the position I'm taking
> is reducing, not increasing, my influence.  I'm taking an unpopular position
> because I believe in it, in spite of it's unpopularity.
>
> I signed the lease with an understanding that the purpose of signing was to
> hold the place until we were incorporated, and could turn the lease over to
> the corporation.  If anyone had suggested that I was being asked to run a
> non-incorporated noisebridge out of a place rented in my name, I wouldn't
> have signed, but that was not the agreement we had.  We were explicity
> signing the lease to hold the place so it would still be there when we were
> incorporated, that's what I agreed to, and that's what I'm still willing to
> do.  I did not consent to pretending we're an incorporated group when we are
> not.  If anyone wants to talk to ahura and see if we can transfer the lease
> to someone else I'm completely willing to remove myself from the situation.
> I don't consider it acceptable to ask a person to take on legal
> responsibility for another person's actions to an extent they aren't
> comfortable with.
>
> I said several times in that meeting that I wasn't comfortable with giving
> out keys to everyone yet.  I apparently should have been yelling about it
> more, but I absolutely voiced an objection, it was not addressed, and as far
> as I heard no one ever asked if we all agreed to "anyone who wants gets
> keys."  If the question was asked before we moved on I did not hear it.  I
> don't think it was asked though.
>
> I know some of you don't like my position, and that's ok.  You don't have to
> agree with me.  However, I'm not interested in working for people who don't
> want me, so like I said I've offered an easy two step process for getting me
> out of any perceived "position of power".
>
> All you have to do is get my name off the lease, and then ask me leave the
> board.
>
> I believe my position is fair and honest, and I stand by it.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:42 PM, grey <artkiver at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Noah, I was there as well, and while I appreciate that we're all
>> individuals and that our perception of reality is subjective, and that
>> this issue while not on the initial agenda (brought up by Shannon, and
>> seconded by many including myself) was discussed at length and
>> consensus was asked for and achieved without David, me and from what I
>> gather many other people hearing you or anyone else voice an objection
>> before it was recorded in the minutes.  I was sitting on the chair
>> five feet from where you were standing on the stairs and certainly
>> heard you at other points in the evening, but I did not hear you voice
>> any final objections to the call for consensus.  Also, this was hardly
>> the only issue brought up at the meeting on the spot that reached
>> consensus or otherwise, yet it is the one that you and you alone are
>> taking issue with.  I think it is important to note that the other
>> dissenting voice with Rachel was stated very differently, that she
>> acknowledges that consensus was reached and that she has had a change
>> of heart.
>>
>> While neither one of these approaches is respectful to the group and
>> our process, you should be very clear (as I and others are) that you
>> are currently the only one claiming that consensus was not reached on
>> Tuesday evening, while the perception of me, and many others I've
>> discussed this with is that we did indeed have consensus to the point
>> where this was recorded in the official minutes, and David even
>> explained on the mailing list how key distribution would be handled in
>> the interim prior to you or Rachel voicing objections.
>>
>> I do NOT see this as a failure of process, I see this as a failure of
>> the individual, in this case specifically you.  You are failing to
>> respect the process and your place in it and are attempting to assert
>> power that you should have no rights to given the charters of this
>> space.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.  I would have much rather heard your objections loudly
>> and exhaustively as you're listing them now behind a keyboard, when
>> you were standing there in person, and I would not be taking issue
>> with things now if that were the case.  But as it is you are
>> absolutely undermining our process in a deleterious way and you need
>> to own up to that and decide where you stand and what actions you will
>> take to rectify it.
>>
>> The only respect I view this as a failure of process is that our
>> process should not allow an individual to dissent AFTER THE FACT and
>> act as an obstacle to everyone else.  I can see something more akin to
>> a "hey we reached consensus, we tried this, it isn't working, let's
>> figuring something else out" type appeals, that sort of thing is
>> absolutely necessary for any organization which wants to change and
>> stay dynamic, but your current approach is not that by a long shot in
>> that you are not giving a chance to let the membership try and see if
>> there are failures or not that need working around.  You are acting
>> with no formal backing or guidelines and are instead attempting to
>> flaunt powers you haven't been granted.  This is really a losing
>> strategy for -you-, the internet isn't the only thing that routes
>> around damage, people are far better at adapting to and avoiding
>> malfeasance once they encounter it.  Particularly the sorts of hackers
>> we have among us and want to encourage to participate in this project.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> -grey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Noah Balmer <noahbalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Molnar <dmolnar at eecs.berkeley.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> grey wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Rachel, with all due respect, neither you nor Noah are the sole lease
>> >>> signer or board members, yet you are the only two who have taken issue
>> >>> with the consensus reached on Tuesday.
>> >>
>> >> For what it's worth, Noah's position seems to be that he does not feel
>> >> consensus was reached on Tuesday. I do remember him raising concerns,
>> >> then I
>> >> remember a lot of discussion. After the discussion, I thought, and I
>> >> wrote
>> >> down, that we reached consensus about the keys. That does not match
>> >> Noah's
>> >> feeling and recollection. (Noah, let me know if this is accurate or
>> >> not.)
>> >
>> > What I recall I this:  at the time we signed the lease we said "let's
>> > get
>> > keys to the people on the lease, and figure out who gets keys once we
>> > figure
>> > out membership".  I the time my understanding was that we'd have
>> > incorporation almost immediately (it's, once again, taking longer than
>> > we
>> > thought), figure out who our members were (most of us) and then figure
>> > out
>> > keys.  Key's weren't on the wiki agenda for tuesday's meeting, I didn't
>> > find
>> > out about that we'd been talking about them until immediately before the
>> > meeting.  In the meeting, the idea of giving keys to everyone
>> > immediately
>> > came up, and I said several times that I wasn't comfortable with that.
>> > someone said "who actually wants keys?" some hands went up, we all
>> > stopped
>> > talking and looked around.  It seemed like a small group and for what
>> > it's
>> > worth I had no particular objection to any person in it, though they
>> > weren't
>> > all people I know.  Then everyone started talking again in a bunch of
>> > fragmented groups, then got shouted down and we moved on.  I was pretty
>> > sure
>> > that a number of people, including David, had heard me object (as he
>> > says
>> > above, "I do remember him raising concerns"), and had seen that my
>> > objection
>> > hadn't been addressed, so I thought we were just punting on the issue
>> > until
>> > we could talk about it in a smaller group, perhaps in the subset of
>> >  people
>> > who wanted keys.  I must not have been listening to the right
>> > sub-conversations because the next morning I was really surprised to see
>> > "everyone who wants a key gets it" in the notes.  I had objected, we
>> > never
>> > addresses that objection, and while that policy is fine with me in a
>> > post-incorporation, defined membership context I don't like it until
>> > then.
>> > I could have done things better, I could have anticipated that other
>> > people
>> > would interpret what happened differently from how I do, and I could
>> > have
>> > been more assertive.  I think this is primarily a failure of process
>> > though.  the suggestions I've been hearing about to make every decision
>> > more
>> > deliberate (as we did for several other things on Tuesday), to put
>> > things on
>> > the agenda beforehand so people have time to think about them, and
>> > generally
>> > keep things more formal, are good safeguards against these kinds of
>> > misunderstandings.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> While I did take notes, I recognize that I'm fallible, hence the
>> >> request
>> >> at the top of the notes for corrections or different views. I recognize
>> >> that
>> >> many, many people thought we did have consensus, but I also believe
>> >> Noah
>> >> when he says he didn't think we had it. Not sure there is a lot to be
>> >> gained
>> >> by rashomoning the meeting on this point.
>> >>
>> >> So we need to make sure this kind of "yes it was consensus/no it
>> >> wasn't"
>> >> does not happen again. I like the suggestions I've seen from Rachel,
>> >> Andy,
>> >> and others here. We can and should follow some of them at our next
>> >> meeting.
>> >>
>> >> -David Molnar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>