[Noisebridge-discuss] Trimmed off the board list

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 23:05:44 UTC 2014

It was mostly the "Father Al" cracks. Maybe I should just lighten up
though, but that and the other stuff kind of stung.

Just to reassure you Rachel, I am well aware of the bullshit that women who
speak up have to put up with. I'm not trying to tone police you, but when I
say your words hurt me I'm telling you how you've made me feel and that I
take you just as seriously whether or not you are mocking me, so please
don't go the mocking route.

Again, I am sincere when I want to hear out people who disagree with me. It
can be easy to read sarcasm or insincerity into text, so I'm saying that as
plainly as possible. I am not paying "lip service". I have my own views and
will probably disagree with you, but I don't want anyone to confuse "I
disagree with you" with "you can't speak, shut up".

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:

> It's mean spirited to say I respect you even though I completely disagree
> with everything you are doing, and you categorically dismiss all concerns
> while paying them lip service?
> It's sarcastic for me to describe things as I see them? How else will we
> reach an understanding if you do not seek to understand my point of view? I
> seek to understand yours as well.
> My research indicates there is no way to discuss difficult topics without
> seeming to be difficult to someone who disagrees with you. Without using
> humor it comes off angry, with humor it comes off sarcastic.  This is the
> abyss at the bottom of Tone Argument Canyon... there is categorically no
> appropriate way to disagree while female (kind of like driving while black)
> without being an Obnoxious Strident Person.
> This is why it is so important to construct decision making systems that
> accommodate the fact that people disagree, rather than to attempt to create
> a space where nobody disagrees - I call that an echo chamber.
> R.
> On Mar 26, 2014 11:59 AM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rachel, do you think your mean-spirited sarcasm is inviting to dialog?
>> Are you interested in having a dialog?
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder, Al, if you have any thoughts on the ideological tension
>>> between your statements 'community buy in is key' and 'not everyone will be
>>> completely satisfied'
>>> One thing 100 percent consensus neatly solves is taking the factionalism
>>> out of who gets to have their way. Everyone does, not just whoever is in
>>> power.
>>> You are clearly delineating that you are in power here, Al. Is your goal
>>> to use your power to get your way? From my point of view, that is what you
>>> are trying to do here. This could be out of ignorance, blindness,
>>> stubbornness, or a willfull belief that Father Al knows best.
>>> You'll forgive me for finding the most hope in believing you to be, in
>>> this case, ignorant and stubborn.... since I sure don't believe in a
>>> paternalistic approach to life. I don't think Father Al knows best. I do
>>> respect you for trying, but call me crazy optimistic for hoping for you to
>>> grow, change.  Maybe you should try putting up signs for meth like you did
>>> for graffiti... that worked, right?
>>> I gotta take a break now, kids, I just admitted in public to respecting
>>> Al.
>>> R.
>>> On Mar 26, 2014 11:30 AM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Madelynn and Tom articulated this better last night at the meeting, but
>>>> I want to reiterate for people just following the list that these changes
>>>> are not out of nowhere. We have been talking with individuals about how to
>>>> fix Noisebridge's problems well before the election. Community buy-in is
>>>> key. I don't want to dismiss the election results out of hand; it's not
>>>> fair to the members who voted after being told the board would take an
>>>> active hand at space improvements. This also doesn't mean the board is
>>>> accountable to no one, but it does mean that not everyone will be
>>>> completely satisfied with decisions being made (just like any group of
>>>> people).
>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:16 PM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>>>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to apologize, it appears I was mistaken. It seems that
>>>>> the list was not trimmed, but that discussion of these fundamental changes
>>>>> did not take place online any place I am able to find, follow, or see, as a
>>>>> former board member, council member, member member, throbbing gristle
>>>>> member.
>>>>> Community buy in for shifts is really key, people. The bigger the
>>>>> shift the more important this piece of the puzzle is.
>>>>> It's never too late to work towards consensus.
>>>>> R.
>>>>> On Mar 26, 2014 6:08 AM, "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think it's interesting that sometime in the last month or so,
>>>>>> someone has for the first time since i was added in 2010, gone through the
>>>>>> board email list and trimmed out former board members.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/fc2c70ee/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list