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

John Ellis neurofog at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 19:55:46 UTC 2014


Mitch,

Thank you for speaking up. I always admire your insight.

It was my impression, pre-election, that the plan was for the board to take
an active role in the running of the space, with the 5 members discussing
and working through various issues. It was also my impression than at least
one board member said they would (paraphrasing here) respect consensus, but
NOT do anything illegal, even if required by a consensed decision. More
importantly, that the current board would go beyond the minimum annual
meeting. Consensus should be the primary decision making process, as it
always has by convention. I realize this is not legally required per
bylaws, to have full consensus.

As I understood, the board is empowered to officially interface with the
State of California on behalf of NB, and other organizations, as either
legally required (corporate filings) or necessary for the continued
operation of the space (obtain insurance etc. but treasurer actually pays).
I don't recall any board member saying they would override/ignore consensus
on a routine basis.

I still believe that to the maximum extent possible, the board should
present items to the membership for discussion and consensus, before they
become official "policy".

Regards,
John




On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Mitch Altman <maltman23 at hotmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
> Best,
> Mitch.
>
> ________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c4e6b4ca/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list