[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's talk about: Noisebridge Membership
davidfine
d at vidfine.com
Thu Mar 27 15:51:11 UTC 2014
Noisebridge board: don't vote on things the same day they are proposed.
Good process requires seeking input from all board members.
Al: you did not make an attempt to work with Naomi in this case. That is
why people question the validity of the board's decision.
--D
On 3/27/14, 4:00 AM, Naomi Gmail wrote:
> You have my utmost and truest word that I am trying to promote a good
> process here.
>
> THAT is why I refuse to discuss any specific issues about this
> proposal: it is a distraction from a very serious problem that needs
> to be solved *first*.
>
> I did explicitly say "go ahead and discuss in the hypothetical". Did
> you notice?
>
> I am objecting to the tacit promulgation of "decisions" made through
> bad process (re: 2/3 consensus).
>
> Post without that specific block i called out, and you're fine.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com
> <mailto:asweigart at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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- majority.
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.md
>>>> which 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
>>>> <mailto: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/20140327/e11bc83b/attachment.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list