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

[Hannah Grimm]

The bad kind of drugs are the kind that make people feel unsafe in the
space.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:

> Have you ever actually put out an actual fire? Do you know how in theory
> or in practice or both?
>
> Is the goal here to put out the fire?
>
> Then fucking act like it, and take a minute to think about how to remove
> the fuel instead of running around like chicken little bemoaning how the
> sky is falling because the bad kind of drugs are taking over from the good
> kinds.
>
> One of my first all-night-hack sessions at Noisebridge in 2009 or so was
> accompanied by a quiet little hiss-crack all night long from goth kids in
> the library having a nitrous death guild afterparty. Why does Noisebridge
> have the wrong kind of people offering you the wrong kind of drugs now?
>
> What are the wrong kinds of drugs?
>
> Meth is bad, don't get me wrong. It's provably toxic to people who use it.
> I think it's interesting to try and contextualize increased meth use in the
> space with shifts in the broader socioeconomic context that supports
> nosiebridge.
>
> Want less homeless drug users doing drugs that make themselves worse?
>
> Build a better society.
>
> R.
> On Mar 26, 2014 7:09 AM, "Will Sargent" <will.sargent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What Jessica said, in spades.
>>
>> Noisebridge not only has people sleeping in the space on a regular basis,
>> it has people being offered meth in the space.
>>
>>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043062.html
>>
>> What I find really damning is not even that someone was offered meth in
>> the space.  It's the reaction that Monad had from the people in the space.
>>  No-one helped him.  Only one person even offered to identify him, and one
>> guy expressed the opinion that no-one should *ever* be banned.
>>
>> If this is normal, tolerated behavior in the space now, then yes: shit is
>> on fire.
>>
>> Will.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:12 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/19bc5dab/attachment.html>