[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's talk about: Noisebridge Membership

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 10:30:13 UTC 2014

I am just exasperated with you. I know we disagree on many things, but the
way you keep slapping down any attempt I make to work with you, well, makes
it very hard to work with you.

I know it doesn't look like it to you, but I am bending over backwards
trying to accommodate you and every other critic. And I will continue to
bend over even more:

Naomi, I will talk to the board about reverting the policy changes made on
Monday. BUT, I need to know that if the board we passes similar policies at
the next board meeting, that you won't declare that those policies are also
bogus for some contrived reason. I think my worry about goal-post moving is
valid here; already Kevin keeps declaring that the board doesn't have the
support of the membership because we didn't win with a -large enough-

I need to know that this is truly about your concern for proper process
according to Noisebridge's bylaws, and not just your own attempt to take
down some policies you don't like.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> I did read your emails very carefully.  And this part specifically:
> Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change
> Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus.
> This is the part where you make the presumption that the "2/3's consensus"
> has been legitimately accepted. This is acting in bad faith, because it is
> part of that massive overgrown proposal, and what's more it happens to be
> own stated pet issue to boot.
> I just... you continue to test all credulity in your even having a sense
> of ethics.
> --Naomi
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Naomi, please stop accusing me of bad faith EVERY SINGLE TIME that I make
> a good faith attempt to communicate about things. You've already refused to
> even discuss your own objections to these policies, but other people might
> want to air their grievances or comments.
> I wish you would at least read my emails before you jump in with
> accusations: "Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to
> change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in
> stone and are open to change, just as they have always been."
> I started this thread to talk specifically about the "Noisebridge
> Membership" section, and in your VERY FIRST SENTENCE you derail the
> conversation with begging the question. It is _very_ frustrating trying to
> work with you when you act this way.
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al: why are you acting in bad faith here?
>> We agreed as a board to revisit the process by which these policy changes
>> came about in the first place and YOU even proposed reverting them to put
>> these changes through a more legitimized board discussion process.
>> Why are you putting these discussion items forth as if these changes were
>> already in effect?
>> Discuss as hypothetical all you want.  I encourage it.  Although why you
>> didn't bother doing this /before/ voting on a massive board proposal that
>> /could/ have been broken down into pieces like these is a great mystery.
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's a lot of talk on the mailing list about the latest board
>> policies. I'd like to focus on segments individually so that discussion can
>> happen about which parts people agree with an which parts people don't.
>> Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change
>> Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone
>> and are open to change, just as they have always been.
>> This thread concerns the "Noisebridge Membership" section on
>> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.mdwhich reads:
>> =====
>> There is one category of Noisebridge membership.
>> Noisebridge membership dues are $80 per month. In case of financial
>> hardship, the treasurer may choose to allow a member to pay dues at one
>> half of the normal rate.
>> =====
>> My own commentary about this section:
>> This is a change from the two-tiered membership that was created by
>> consensus last year. I'm very much in favor of this part: I understand that
>> the two-tiered membership was created because the barrier to becoming a
>> capital-M member was very high, but the concept of a hierarchy of
>> membership has always bothered me.
>> The dues part is also a change away from optional member dues. This part
>> I'm less enthusiastic about. I know Kevin wanted to roll back the consensus
>> item that created optional dues. My concerns are that 1) I'd prefer if
>> members chose themselves whether or not they paid the "starving hacker"
>> rate instead of the treasurer and 2) I'm okay with mandatory dues for
>> membership but the fact that Noisebridge is members only means that money
>> does technical come into access to the space. (Only technically though,
>> members can brings guests as always and, let's face it, no one really
>> enforces the members-only policy.) I think this is something that could be
>> changed.
>> Any other comments about this section?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140327/08c57f9e/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list