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

[Christie Dudley]

Perhaps I sound argumentative because I feel that this is beating a dead
horse and legalizing things that don't need rules. To the reader who hasn't
followed this discussion, would lead one to believe that people actually did
things that didn't happen.

I don't consider this discussion productive but to the contrary, it calls
people to doubt the motivations of well-intentioned people.

Christie
---
Why I take the road less traveled?  Oh, that's easy.  I'm claustrophobic.


On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:38 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

>
>   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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091129/e2a5ce54/attachment-0003.html>