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

[spinach williams]

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:14:18 AM Al Sweigart wrote:
> 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
> schedules.
consider my "should" to be the closest thing to a proposal to change what it 
actually is that i am able to make. and no, it isn't hard. efforts may be 
protracted, but comparing calendars and seeing where the empty spaces line up 
is a negligible effort between people with a vested interest in openly 
communicating with each other to the benefit of the community they have 
volunteered to serve. when someone is kept out of the loop and a decision is 
rushed without any consultation of any missing member -- again, of Five -- 
things are suspect. 
> From this email:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043125.
> html
> 
> "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
it isn't a single-worded dismissal. that's sixteen words. sixteen words coming 
after a bunch of other words in which naomi detailed her exclusion from the 
decision making process. to answer your question in that other thread, this is 
one of those microagressions. it isn't editorializing, al, it's outright 
slander.