[Noisebridge-discuss] [Drama] [fire]

Wed Mar 26 16:53:25 UTC 2014

I actually really love this metaphor because it is now making me think of
all the times something was really accidentally on fire and I had to make
it stop because it kept being on fire and i was the most responsible
seeming person around... either literally, like I had started the fire, or
else literally someone came up to me and said 'I found this thing on fire
and I don't know what to do, you seem better equipped to deal with this.'

Once I started a duff fire in a stationary sander. 'Duff' is that crap
which accretes inside the tool's case from all the sanding dust. This
particular sander was mostly used for wood-based things, until I came along
and sanded off some bit of metal from something. So when I was working
elsewhere in the shop 30 minutes later I smelled a bit of burning and
eventually traced it to the hidden insides of the stationary sander, where
the hot bits of sanded-off metal had lit the duff on fucking fire.

Once someone came to me for help because they had found a dangerous
situation they didn't know how to address. It was a propane burner that had
been left unattended, burned through its hose connection from tank to
burner, and was merrily burning from the raw end of the hose.

In both circumstances the way to solve the problem was simple - remove
fuel. The tricky thing in one case was to identify the source of the
burning smell, in the other case it was knowing where the off handle was.
In each case there was in fact time to think about things even while they
were on fire, and in fact without thinking about them the fire could not
have been put out.  It could be argued that a most important skill for
putting out fires is the ability to pause and think when things are indeed
in their very worst state.

Neither of these stories took place at Noisebridge. No noisebridges were
set on fire in the construction of this metaphor.

R.

But where and which kind of accelerant? Really important not to try n put
out the wrong kinda chemical fire with water, AMIRITE? Then you just have
beautiful flaming pools of water.
On Mar 26, 2014 6:12 AM, "Jessica Ross" <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/ca7943b5/attachment.html>