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

Thu Mar 27 16:41:18 UTC 2014

Whoa. There's a communication problem then, which the board should be
active on clearing up. Here's the section concerning how the members change
policy:

https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/consensus.md#issues--proposals

Aside from the 2/3 part, it's pretty much the same process as before. There
is no language saying the board determines what is or isn't up for
consensus, and I agree, the board having that sort of power would not at
all be in the spirit of group decision making.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:26 AM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:

> As an aside, Al, I don't think it's accurate to say that Noisebridge
> policy can be changed by 2/3 consensus under these rules. At the last
> Tuesday meeting, I asked the members of the board to give a list of things
> that (in their view at least) are no longer up for consensus, and it ranged
> from banning to basic spending decisions. The strong impression I got was
> that the Board determines what is or is not up for consensus, which isn't
> really in the spirit of the thing.
>  On Mar 27, 2014 8:51 AM, "davidfine" <d at vidfine.com> wrote:
>
>>  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> 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> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing listNoisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.nethttps://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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/adbf84f6/attachment.html>