[Noisebridge-discuss] Trimmed off the board list

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 02:10:57 UTC 2014

Thank you, Dennis. I appreciate you (not sarcastic at all when I say this)
braving the mailing list to state your mind.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Dennis Gentry <dennis.gentry at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hey Rachel and Father Al,
> [Perhaps I'm feeding a troll, but in case not:]
> Noisebridge apparently needs a benevolent Father.  I look forward to a
> space that more people are comfortable in, and I wouldn't normally pipe up,
> but I really appreciate Al's efforts to improve the place.
> It doesn't seem worthwhile to re-vote for/against the board via -discuss,
> and Rachel, I doubt you'll get anything close to the number of votes you'd
> need for a recall, but maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all learn something
> either way.
> 100% Consensus or whatever you call the past process has resulted in a
> foul place I can't bring my kids to, and am not even really inclined to go
> myself.  And I'm an excellent hacker and mentor, so it's Noisebridge's loss
> (even if I am not modest).
> Cheers,
> Dennis
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:29 PM, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> Let's be crystal clear - I am not confused.
>> I have not confused 'I disagree with you' with anything else.
>> I am trying to communicate with you that many people hear your stance as
>> 'your disagreements are irrelevant'.
>> If my tone is valid then yours is too, I see no way around it. I am
>> scrupulously polite in a precise correlation to whether I find myself in a
>> space where I feel scrupulously respected.
>> Perhaps instead of telling me how you do respect me, you might listen to
>> some advice on how to behave respectfully. I know, I haven't been behaving
>> perfectly.  It is an attempt to demonstrate to you the precise impact of
>> your historic behavior of same nature.
>> We can continue to have a dick jousting contest around whose opinion is
>> more valid but I have to warn you - i am a cyborg. mine is a strap on that
>> I researched heavily and had to wade through a great deal of bigotry to
>> get, so it will probably outlast yours.
>> Yes, that was a metaphor. No, it was not scrupulously respectful. The
>> fire metaphor was, but you didn't even respond to it so I am trying
>> different tactics to Hack You. I want to install this Empathy Module but I
>> can't find the slot. I'll just leave it on the table here, feel free to ask
>> for documentation if you decide you want to use it.
>> R.
>> On Mar 26, 2014 1:06 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/aecd4f43/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list