[Noisebridge-discuss] Theoretical discussion on what must be approved by consensus at Noisebridge

[jim]

   christie, do i correctly read an argumentative tone 
in your response? 
   i was not discussing consensus nor how we as a group 
might go about accepting a 501(c)3 donation. as to my 
contributions to the thread, the subject might better 
be changed to something like "what kinds of topics 
demand open information." note i have not suggested any 
standards, only something that might be characterized 
as policy or "good form". i wrote definitions hoping 
just to be clear as to my intent (i've repeatedly 
gotten the sense that people were not responding to 
what i was trying to get across). 

   i have no idea what are the facts of any possible deal 
with monkeybrains or the city, just that... 

...if deals are in the planning stages, and if the deals 
may have an effect on noisebridge as a whole, then before 
action is taken it seems right to me that people open up 
and share the details with any of us who might be 
interested. that's the only point i've been trying to 
make. 



On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 14:55 -0800, Christie Dudley wrote:
> I changed the subject line to reflect the true nature of this
> discussion because we've extended well beyond the realm of anything
> that's listed in there.
> 
> Comments interpsersed.
> --- 
> Why I take the road less traveled?  Oh, that's easy.  I'm
> claustrophobic.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>         my comments interspersed...
>         JS: seems worthy of examination. my opinion:
>         people inviting their friends to join NB seems not a case of
>         "in
>         the name of noisebridge". setting up a partnership or customer
>         relation with another entity does. (just for clarity, anything
>         a
>         member does to hack something, perform, create, etc., is done
>         personally; NB provides a venue in which people can do their
>         things.)
>         
> 
> How about interacting with the press?  What about representing
> Noisebridge in a formal context such as at events or conventions?
> These are far more important to the well-being of Noisebridge than
> committing to pay the power bill.  Although we have been pretty lax by
> your standards in discussing trash service.  Do we really need to have
> a consensus vote and hash that out at meetings?  I mean, I never even
> heard a competing bid.
> 
> That being said, for the monkeybrains service we have committed to
> nothing.  I don't think it's sinking in with most people that we have
> not agreed to do, pay, or be anything FOR Monkeybrains.  This is
> neither a partnership nor a customer relationship.  They're simply
> giving us bandwidth.  Andy donated the gear.  (Thanks Andy!)  No
> agreement == no commitment.  So this situation would not apply even by
> your own criteria.
> 
>  
>         JS: accepting a donation may or may not be "in the name of
>         noisebridge". people bring by tools, equipment, materials,
>         and general crap. mostly these are just dumped in the space,
>         maybe neatly. these are not "in the name of" nor "on behalf
>         of" noisebridge in any significant sense.
>           Note that as NB is a 501(c)3 corporation, in the case of
>         donations by parties declaring their donations as 501(c)3
>         deductions on their tax statements, NB is bound by some
>         restrictions as to what we can do with the donations: we
>         can't just sell them, nor can we turn them over to one or
>         more members as their new personal toys. it's unlikely
>         but possible that the IRS or some other entity may want to
>         audit the donors and verify by inspection that NB has not
>         violated our legal restraints. in the case that NB no longer
>         wants a donation, dispersal must be done within legal bounds.
>         there may be costs NB has to incur, for example for some
>         donation that requires a lot of power to run, or something
>         that must have natural gas (NB may have to incur costs of
>         running gas lines), or there may be known safety hazards
>         that require some kind of improvement or that are disallowed
>         by the coding ordinances for this building....
> 
> You raise all very good points here.  It's important for someone who
> brings something into the space to recognize how it will impact
> everyone else in the space.  I disagree that it's necessary to send
> every donation to consensus to determine this.  I expect each person
> who considers bringing something into the space to be excellent and
> consider the impact they have on the other members and guests.  
> 
> Take the DIYBio fridge for example.  Assume it was donated.  It was
> brought into the space without consideration for how it would impact
> the space.  We did not have room for it, and there was no
> understanding of what it was and why it was in the middle of the
> space.  It impacted other people, particularly those who's shelves it
> blocked.
>  
>         JS: i don't think we're so bad. we've had some email
>         wildfires,
>         but seems to me things have simmered down reasonably well in
>         previous cases, and tho' a lot of us get bored or frustrated
>         with the volume, the air does get a good clearing.
> 
> I have to say I disagree here.  There are a number of good projects
> that came and went because of silly speculation over how they impacted
> the space.  Take Deep Crack, for example.  This is a monumental
> historical piece of hardware in the hacking world that members wanted
> to run a workshop with.  Although it posed no real threat to anyone,
> the donation was withdrawn because of continued speculation over
> imagined hazards.
>  
>         Summary: "in the name of noisebridge" means noisebridge incurs
>         some legal or financial other formal obligation.
>         "on behalf of noisebridge" means that noisebridge incurs some
>         spatial or labor or cost responsibility.
>         if the implications of members' actions have insignificant
>         affect in either regard, we're an anarchistic do-ocracy that
>         deprecates labels.
>         
>         my opinion, of course.
> 
> Wow, this is getting awfully lawyerly.  Are you sure we need to get
> things nailed down to that level of detail and verbiage?  It'll all be
> lost in a year once we forget this discussion unless we have some sort
> of enforcement regime, which I'm completely opposed to.
> 
> I'd rather just people be excellent to each other, which means being
> mindful of their impact on others in the space.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, as a matter of law, the only people who can enter
> Noisebridge into any sort of a legally binding thing are officers (not
> directors) so that's Jake, Jeffrey and Seth.  Unless one of these
> people have to be involved in order to commit us to anything.
> 
> Christie
>