[Noisebridge-discuss] [Drama] Fwd: [Noisebridge-announce] Important Noisebridge Procedural Changes

[rachel lyra hospodar]

I would argue that a very fundamental part of Noisebridge charter is to in
fact listen to and attempt to incorporate rather than override a dissenting
opinion.

There is always time to mull things over, unless something is on fire.

Also, I would like to note the difference between formally and formerly and
humbly submit a pull request to the whole announcement due to whiplash and
confusion. What the fuck kind of members are we talking about, formal ones?
If I wear a tuxedo on the sixth Tuesday of a given month do I get a say in
how Noisebridge works?  Ah yes, do-ocratic voting. I hereby decree a new
class of Noisebridge members, the formal kind. Please discuss.

R.
On Mar 25, 2014 8:48 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> 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".
>
> -Al
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> 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
>> it.
>>
>> 2 + the person who proposed the changes = 3.  3 out of 5 is a positive
>> vote.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/90d0d6b9/attachment.html>