[Noisebridge-discuss] Bylaws committee

Christie Dudley longobord at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 06:31:48 UTC 2010


OK, that's fair enough.  The specific discussion I'm thinking of is the one
where we shunted the membership removal process to committee.  The committee
met and went over ideas for membership removal processes.  I think they
presented 3 at a following meeting.  Of those 3, the membership didn't like
any.  The next meeting they came back with another one.

I vaguely remember a decision that we were putting the cart before the horse
in defining forcible removal, but the committee did succeed in coming up
with our other forms of removal, including removal for failure to pay dues,
as well as

I don't recall any committees being formed for specific way-we-function
things since then, but I may be wrong.  I missed a bunch of meetings in the
last few months due to my work schedule.

It reduced a lot of drama to have solid things presented to the membership
instead of trying to hash them out en masse.  I believe committees are
typically headed by the person who suggested we need them.  I think we could
do well and get a lot more done to send more to committee than we have
recently.  Of course, this means we need to be careful about having
knee-jerk reactions against committees to go along with that.

Christie
_______
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." -- W. Blake.

The outer bounds is only the beginning.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genriel/sets/72157623376093724/


On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Sai Emrys <noisebridge at saizai.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Jeffrey Malone
> <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com> wrote:
> > Also, could I ask you to not simply tell others to "review the
> > archives" before participating?  I feel it comes off as hostile, and
> > inhibits discussion.  It also goes against what I have personally seen
> > as a policy of inclusion at Noisebridge, no matter long you've been
> > around.
>
> +1 on this; I've perceived this kind of suggestion as hostile before.
>
> On a more practical point: if you remember a particular discussion -
> one that you think the other person doesn't, presumably, or you
> wouldn't be referencing it - it's a LOT faster for you to look up an
> actual thread link in the archives than for them to do slog through
> all of it in search of something you've only poorly referred to.
>
> IMO asking someone to read a specific previous thread (or threads) is
> reasonable and even helpful (though certainly amenable to more or less
> tact). If they're not taking something into account that's been hashed
> out in detail before, it's entirely appropriate to tell them to RTFM
> so that you don't have to repeat it, and so they can understand
> context they might not know.
>
> But asking someone to read the entire newslist archive is not
> reasonable or helpful (or, more pragmatically, useful in arriving at a
> good consensus decision), and implies that people who weren't around
> Back Then™ are at an inherent disadvantage in their opinions or
> suggestions.
>
> I would like to think that our (hacker) culture puts a premium on the
> logical sway of arguments over tradition or social status.
>
> - Sai
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100224/948916c9/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list