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

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 17:14:18 UTC 2014

The keyword there in your sentence is "should". But the bylaws are specific
about what constitutes a quorum: a majority of the directors. And I
disagree, it is difficult to coordinate five specific people with five busy

>From this email:

"Disregard.  The board has, in fact, not "agreed" on these changes, because
they were never discussed."

Spinach, at this point I kind of expect an accusation of me editorializing
from you, but a single-worded dismissal of every other board member's vote
on a matter strikes me as saying her vote could effectively override
everyone else's. When the bylaws say a measure requires a majority is
needed to pass and a majority (heck, a super-majority) votes for it, we
didn't feel it was a stretch to say it had passed.

Spinach, just to clarify, do you think the bylaws of Noisebridge are the
rules that Noisebridge should follow?

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:42 AM, spinach williams <
spinach.williams at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 27, 2014 09:34:07 AM Al Sweigart wrote:
> > Naomi, I will talk to the board about reverting the proposals, we can
> > discuss them online, and then discuss them at the next board meeting. But
> > if we have a quorum
> when there are five people, quorum should be five. it's not difficult to
> coordinate five people.
> >her first instinct was to
> > immediately state that her vote can override the votes of every other
> other
> > board member, and I thought that rolling back the proposals would be
> > endorsing a claim to veto power over everything the board does
> when did this happen? can you find a quote?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/adb9f15d/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list