[Noisebridge-discuss] It doesn't matter if you like consensus

Mitch Altman maltman23 at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 27 19:00:44 UTC 2014

Whether you (personally) like consensus process, or not, this is a fact:
Noisebridge is an organization that has made its decisions with consensus since its inception.

* The only way to change that process is for a consensus on a proposal to change it.   That proposal was not consensed upon if Naomi was not part of the process.

* Furthermore, according to the way Noisebridge was formed (and has run for its entire life), the Noisebridge board is merely a rubberstamp for the consensus of the membership.  And the Noisebridge membership did not consense upon this proposal.  

* The board cannot take it upon itself to change something that effects the entire membership without consensus of the membership.

All of these points need to be addressed.


> From: pnaomi at gmail.com 
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:28:52 -0700 
> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net 
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] this is what cognitive dissonance looks like 
> 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. 
> --Naomi 
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Al Sweigart 
> <asweigart at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 		 	   		  

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list