[Noisebridge-discuss] [Drama] Fwd: [Noisebridge-announce] Important Noisebridge Procedural Changes
mmartiniere at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 08:26:39 UTC 2014
I 100% agree that there should be discussion on this topic.
Under the procedure that we agreed upon in the first Board of Directors meeting (available on the wiki), we decided as a group (with full participation) that:
* Board to use private github issue tracker
* Decisions can be made on the tracker: proposal contains "PROPOSAL",
once proposal has board-majority support.
There was discussion over the duration of about a week both online and off between myself, Ari, Al, and Tom before and after the proposal had been made. We did reach majority quickly once it was posted and after issues were raised and amended.
Based on the procedure we had agreed upon as the board, I wanted to make this information known to the Noisebridge community as soon as possible so that there could be discussion online and offline. Unfortunately that agreement did come very close to the beginning of the meeting, but I can assure you that was not intentional.
I hope this helps clarify a bit more, and I will continue to contribute to discussion and answer questions/concerns tomorrow.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was hoping for a public discussion.
Membership: please discuss the idea that board "agreements" can
happen without all of the board having time to read, comment on, and
raise concerns (if any) about what's been proposed.
Actually, I don't think "agreement" should ever happen outside of
board meetings. It's not like we're not meeting enough. Twice a
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Al Sweigart<asweigart at gmail.com <https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>> wrote:
>/ Why did you reply to this thread if you didn't want to talk about this
/>/ publicly? You can't just say "Disregard" and expect that no one else will
/>/ comment on this commandment.
/>/ I told Tom that I agreed with the proposal, so it's 4 out of 5.
/>/ Your humble opinion aside, decisions do not require a unanimous vote of the
/>/ board. The bylaws of Noisebridge don't say it does and have never said that.
/>/ "Naomi does not agree" is not "the board does not agree".
/>/ On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Naomi Most<pnaomi at gmail.com <https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>> wrote:
/>>/ Oh goody, let's make this public.
/>>/ Al, the issues in question were proposed 7 hours ago, during which
/>>/ time I was at work. Then I went to yoga. Then I found when I decided
/>>/ to check my email that about 10 different issues were all lumped
/>>/ together in a single "proposal" and that 2 people had voted "+1" on
/>>/ 2 + the person who proposed the changes = 3. 3 out of 5 is a positive
/>>/ These changes were then implemented *immediately*.
/>>/ IMHO, the board did not "agree", because "agreement" cannot occur in a
/>>/ situation where discussion did not take place.
/>>/ I have already put in a proposal within the board that proposals can't
/>>/ be voted upon and carried out until one full week has passed. I can't
/>>/ believe I had to do that, but apparently some people think that
/>>/ "agreement" can be reached without discussion.
/>>/ Membership: discuss.
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com <https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>
Community Engineer. Entrepreneur. Geek.
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/madelynnmartiniere> | Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/creativetaboo>| Email <mailto:madelynn at women2.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss