[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