[Noisebridge-discuss] Frantisek's Membership Status

[Al Sweigart]

Thank you, Tom, for the work you do for Noisebridge. It is often a
thankless job that brings this gif to mind:
http://runningahackerspace.tumblr.com/post/67073619259/ok-your-turn-to-be-on-the-board

As far as Frantisek's membership goes, I do remember him being an official
member with a twice signed page in the membership binder.

I'd also like to point out that there are rules about hiatus membership
(specified here: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Hiatus ) and they say that
unless a member going on hiatus gives a specific date for their return from
hiatus, it is assumed to be three months and their membership automatically
expires four months after they went on hiatus. These were rules that Danny
and other members created and had passed by consensus, which is hardly an
authoritarian act from authoritarian people.

Frantisek, back in 2010 or 2011, what was the date you gave for your return
from hiatus?

-Al


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>wrote:

> Andy Isaacson:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:27:23PM -0800, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> >> Hi Frantisek,
> >>
> >> It looked to me like you were publicly asking me to publicly tell you
> >> whether you were a member. My apologies if I misunderstood. I'm the
> >> secretary, and I've been maintaining the membership rolls since I took
> >> over from Danny (who switched to treasurer, taking over from Kelley).
> >>
> >> Your name does not appear anywhere in my records: either in the
> >> current, hiatus, or former member lists. I have all the paper records
> >> Danny gave me, and all the forms which have been given to me since,
> >> but I do not have a paper membership form with your name on it.
> >
> > Starting a new thread to call him out as not a member is hardly a
> > proportionate response to his question buried in a thread somewhere.
> >
> > The membership lists have never been completely accurate.  We've always
> > avoided requiring that members of noisebridge hew to any single
> > technology.  (These are both features, not bugs.)
> >
> > Frantisek certainly was a member of Noisebridge when he was active in
> > the eary days of the buildout at 2169, and I'm fairly certain he never
> > rescinded his membership.  Our systems are somewhat fuzzy (this is a
> > feature), but I assume dues haven't been paid for Frantisek in over a
> > year, so perhaps that means he's a hiatus member or similar.
> >
> > Based on recent behavior I venture that Frantisek is doing a better job
> > of representing the spirit of Noisebridge than many of the petty
> > authoritarians who've promulgated the recent spate of rule-making and
> > so-called consensus.
> >
>
> Indeed. Everything you've said and more.
>
> I directly told Tom that I wanted him to block this wikipage related
> outing of members as my proxy. He has failed to do so as a member and he
> did not represent my hard resistance, clearly, if this has passed any
> consensus process. What petty authoritarianism indeed.
>
> Everyone should ignore this "consensus" item as it was clearly not a
> matter of Noisebridge consensus. If anyone is removed for not following
> these wiki related rules or they are not allowed to participate by
> someone citing these rules, I move that we remove these petty
> authoritarians from Noisebridge.
>
> This wikipage stuff is not in the spirit of Noisebridge, it is the
> spirit of someone who is vying for power and man, to do that at
> Noisebridge is really really sad.
>
> Tom - could you please knock it off?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jake
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131123/9c11ab76/attachment-0003.html>