[Noisebridge-discuss] this is what cognitive dissonance looks like

Naomi Gmail pnaomi at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 18:28:52 UTC 2014

Al is making such a huge deal out of this "it's really hard to work with 4 other people," coordinating schedules, etc. 

And yet Al was an immediate proponent for the internal board proposal that "proposals must be discussed and voted on within 24 hours".  

Cognitive dissonance. 

There is also the bald FACT that none of the 4 even attempted to contact me while they were all gleefully preparing this monstrous proposal. 

The careful reader will note that no one, not any of the board, has asserted that I could have read the proposal online (it wasnt there until the very day it was voted on), nor do they claim that I was called, or emailed about this.  That is because, to their credit, they are not liars. 

I am 20% of the board membership, systematically left out of a major -- MAJOR -- highly controversial discussion about several fundamental changes to Noisebridge policy.  Even leaving aside the probable inapporpriateness of a 3/5 majority in such deep and far-reaching matters, this is basically systematic discrimination, which Al is continuing to defend by saying "we all voted for it."

Al continues to put forth the argument that "Naomi is trying to overturn the will of the board with a single vote" while also admitting the entire process was problematic, and agreeing -- in writing -- that we should do this over. 

Cognitive. Dissonance. 

We agreed to talk this over at the board meeting, coming up Wednesday. But now I am not sure I even trust that this will be a rational conversation. 


> On Mar 27, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> 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.
> 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 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?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e318984d/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list