[Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their place

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Dec 19 03:06:43 UTC 2013

It's in the meeting notes:

Basically, Danny blocks because other people would block. Kevin blocks
because Noisebridge is a collaborative space and majority voting would undo
or impinge on that. I encourage them (or anyone else) to correct this
description, but it's what I came away from the meeting with. (And, of
course, if Danny and Kevin don't have time to reply to the list, that
doesn't mean they implicitly agree with my description.)

The "other people who would block" I can only take a guess at, and half of
them aren't even living in SF anymore. If I try to read people's minds
about this issue I'm going to fail; I'd rather have them chime in on the
mailing list or show up at a meeting if they have strong feelings about


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:

> Al Sweigart wrote, On 2013-12-18 18:44:
> > The most common tactic in Noisebridge politics is to get people to stop
> > speaking up about issues.
> Then that sounds like an entirely different issue that needs attention.
> Don't cut off the finger when all that is needed is a bandage.
> If I were you I would call out those members.
> --
> Rubin
> rubin at starset.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131218/cc0e7658/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list