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

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 17:45:16 UTC 2014


More communication problems on the fault of the board. We weren't able to
get into discussion about the Community Working Groups, which are basically
groups of members that meet for policies in a specific area. I'll try to
get Tom to clarify on that. Currently the three CWGs that were formed at
the meeting have not taken any actions (and I doubt we'll be able to even
get started until this current ordeal is resolved).

But just for clarity, the policies passed (though, at this point I'm sure
the board will agree it worked in bad process) are here:
https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.md
https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/consensus.md

I'll also respond about non-members at the members meetings (I share the
same concern that you and Kevin bring up), I've just been tied up in emails
all morning.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:37 AM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:

> At the meeting, I asked for specific examples of things that the board
> does not consider to be up for consensus anymore. Tom listed several,
> including banning decisions. It goes without saying that modifications to
> consensus are not up for consensus either, since the board just made a
> whole bunch of them unilaterally.
>
> I'm somewhat ambivalent about removing banning decisions from consensus,
> since we've had a lot of trouble removing abusive people from the space,
> and many of my friends have told me they avoid Noisebridge because they
> feel physically unsafe. But a consensus process that the board can
> invalidate and modify by majority vote doesn't seem like a true consensus
> process to me. The membership doesn't seem to have any real power in this
> system outside of voting in board elections, and guests (which is the
> category I fall into now, I suppose) don't even have a voice at meetings.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20140327/50c58775/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list