[Noisebridge-discuss] Potential misuse of the ultimate power, deleting the 85 page

[Snail]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

>
>
> +1
>
>    and I'm getting disturbed by some behaviors that seem
> associated with some soceng and policy wonks members (or
> their running dogs).
>    I see those groups as a mixed bag: coming together to
> identify and solve problems is good; succumbing to a
> bonding-driven sense of authority and mission leads to
> inconsiderate behavior, mainly overly hasty actions that
> affect others' interests.
>    Do-ocracy or consensus? I like policy, and maybe
> policy wonks can think out a policy that puts reins on
> destructive actions (which are necessary and good--
> getting a bunch of crap out of the space is definitely
> good, but....
>    The recent jettison of stuff from Turing was too hasty:
> Tom gave notice, kept his word, and moved stuff out the
> very day he said he would. But..., as I heard things,
> robert checked with a few people if it was all junk, got
> assent, and called ewaste, which came and took stuff away
> within a day. The problem? Some of us thought removal to
> ewaste meant there would be some time for us to be able
> to go through it to retrieve what was important to us
> (I think that idea was explicitly mentioned, but I'm too
> lazy to go check).
>

Please don't lump Tom's personal actions in with "policywonk people". I
(and the others who pop into meetings regularly or irregularly) had nothing
to do with all that jazz with Turing stuff. Policy doesn't care about
ewaste.

Tom's just an extremely vocal person who wanted to fix the bylaws one day
because it's his kind of thing, and sometimes he does other shit that makes
people upset. Everyone else in policywonks is pretty much there to keep Tom
in check because we believe no one person at Noisebridge should have such
free rein to rewrite our legal policies without supervision, but we want to
encourage him to work on the project because it's a good idea.

Mostly what the [sigh] policy work group has been doing is drafting
different idea-versions of the bylaws to get something that's not just
awful like the current ones.

>From time to time, we bring up our agenda to people at regular nb meetings,
but everyone gets this eye-glazed-over look whenever someone says the word
"policy" and most people are not interested in hashing out the details,
which is the reason why we have a separate group instead of discussing it
every Tuesday night meeting. -- It's not intended to give us a sense of
authority over everyone else and definitely should NOT do so.

We also are not planning to draft anything nearly so specific as what to do
with organization of the space and where things should be stored. I'd be
EXTREMELY against creating policy around such specific and nit-picky
things. Noisebridge has little-to-no policy, historically, and deals with
these kinds of problems is by getting OFFLINE and working out their issues
with each other and coming to a compromise depending on the situation. Lack
of policy wasn't the reason for this communication failure. It probably
could have been handled better, considering there is still bitterness and
people bringing it up on the discuss list, so learn from this incident and
figure out what you need to do to stop it from happening again.

-- 
-Snailssnailssnailssnailssnailssnailssnails
............. _ at y
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120307/2f97e9a6/attachment-0001.html>