[Noisebridge-discuss] the board election was crap and you know it.

Ronald Cotoni setient at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 05:22:32 UTC 2014


If you think it was crap, follow the bylaws and do what they say.  I
believe it is something along the lines of
(c) the vote of the members or, if the corporation has fewer than 50
members, the vote of a majority of all members, to remove the director(s);

I would suggest putting in a github pull request for a new election with a
date and another that requires consensus as the same that the current board
be dismissed when the elections are complete.  That should solve this.
That is what you have to do if you think it was crap.


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, why bother doing what's Right or even following your own written
> policies at all?  Al will just throw a temper-tantrum that you're
> getting in the way.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why bother with a new election? If Naomi doesn't like the results, she'll
> > just come up with some other reason to say that was a sham election also.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi. Do you like social justice?  Sure, we all do.
> >>
> >> Some of you will remember that back in November, a consensus item
> >> passed that dictated that:
> >>
> >>
> >> > "If a
> >> > member has not identified themself as such by adding the
> >> > Category:Members
> >> > to their wiki user page by $DATE, they shall no longer be a member of
> >> > Noisebridge."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040368.html
> >>
> >> I want to bring your attention to a problem.
> >>
> >> $DATE was never assigned a real value.
> >>
> >> However, when the board election happened, the list of members
> >> eligible to vote was shortened to reflect the above edict as if it had
> >> been implemented.
> >>
> >> It hadn't.  It shouldn't have been.
> >>
> >> The resultant disenfranchisement of true Members (any number of them)
> >> due to a misapplied policy means that the board election was a sham,
> >> and should be redone.
> >>
> >> OK?
> >>
> >> Let me know if I've got anything wrong about this.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Naomi, who was sham-elected to the sham board and wants things done
> Right.
> >>
> >> ps. despite passing a consensus item about 3 weeks ago that says the
> >> list of members should be published in the github repo, I don't see it
> >> in there.
> >>
> >> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/tree/master/people
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Naomi Theora Most
> >> naomi at nthmost.com
> >> +1-415-728-7490
> >>
> >> skype: nthmost
> >>
> >> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



-- 
Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140407/22869c3d/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list