[Noisebridge-discuss] /transparency

Mitchel McAllister xonimmortal at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 25 09:04:29 UTC 2013

--- On Sun, 3/24/13, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
* this is only directly referencing incidents IN THE SPACE (2169 mission st., s.f., ca, 94103); nothing outside of it...

No, it is not. This was determined by consensus. You do not get to over-rule consensus.

* we DO NOT want to start/continue a thread about him, merely access this complete information and have it transparent/accessible to ENTIRE community as it was stated that certain people within NB came to a 'consensus'  based on this proof and information to ban someone.

We do? Who exactly is "we"? 

Certain people came to a consesus at the weekly meeting, which is where consensus items are considered, discussed, and passed (or not). If you had an issue with it, you should have been at the meeting.

* any time this happens, ALL information related to it should be transparent...
* thank you for letting us know where to access it...

Again, who is "us"? You are demanding transparency (as long as it conforms to YOUR definition of transparency), yet you are speaking for a group of people without identifying who those people are.

Do we suddenly have a "maestro caucus" at Noisebridge?

- Reverend Mik McAllister
Purveyor of Subversive Fiction

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list