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

Jessica Ross jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 16:12:52 UTC 2014

I hate to say it, but, from here, it looks like you guys are on fire.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Jessica R. Ross
jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/e95fcc2f/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list