[Noisebridge-discuss] My name is Al Sweigart, and I approve this message.

[Albert Sweigart]

I remember this post from Jake in particular. I don't think an email
on the mailing list saying "This is what Noisebridge is" tells us what
Noisebridge is. The current membership of Noisebridge should tell us
that, and one way they can do that is with the board election. Let's
not follow the map over the territory.

I don't think things are "just fine". We constantly make fun of the
consensus process at our meetings. I've seen awesome people stop being
members because they wanted their money to go to a workspace rather
than what they saw Noisebridge as. There are some things that
embarrass me about Noisebridge that keep me from recommending it to my
friends sometimes. Sweeping changes aren't needed, but I think NB's
current situation is far from optimal.

-Al

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:25 AM, erik swedberg <erik_swedberg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> i would like to refer the right honorable gentlemen to the comments made
> some moments ago:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2009-October/008561.html
>
>
> -erik
> ________________________________
> From: Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
> To: Wladyslaw Zbikowski <embeddedlinuxguy at gmail.com>
> Cc: noisebridge-discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 10:59:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] My name is Al Sweigart, and I approve
> this message.
>
> We don't need to escalate the tone of this discussion. I'm putting out
> my views on why someone should (or in some cases, should not) vote for
> me to be on the board. That's all. We can have discussions where we
> talk about our disagreements and not have it become "drama."
>
> Noisebridge is in some ways a very conservative organization, where
> even speaking about going against the status quo is met with hostility
> (albeit the online variety. But it does affect the tone of the
> debate.) I think we could temper our arguments if we changed/abandoned
> the high-stakes consensus process with its nuclear-option blocking.
> People would feel at more ease voicing dissenting opinions without
> fear that they would be seen as personally blocking an issue, and we
> wouldn't need to subvert it with do-acracy.
>
> -Al
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Wladyslaw Zbikowski
> <embeddedlinuxguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think we could use _some_ rules that _are_ enforced.
>>
>>> I want to see what rules the majority of members would like
>>> to see for Noisebridge. These are rules that would be simple and small
>>
>>> even if we don't get rid of consensus altogether for a majority voting
>>> system, I
>>> think the way we conduct our consensus process needs to change.
>>
>> Jesus Christ, what happened while I was gone; did somebody burn the
>> fucking Reichstag?
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>