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

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 17:38:14 UTC 2014

It's easy to dismiss how hard it is to do when you aren't the one that has
to do it, Spinach.

And these sixteen words didn't come after a bunch of other words: this was
Naomi's first email to the list on the subject.

Please do not ignore my question about whether you think the NB bylaws are
valid or not.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:29 AM, spinach williams <
spinach.williams at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/ba1da248/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list