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

Thu Mar 27 20:39:38 UTC 2014

I'd like to articulate out something that seems to have happened - this
spring, due to noisebridge being on fire, folks who were around and paying
attention in a fairly narrow window of time (during which we were already
enmeshed in changing the makeup of the decision-making body at noisebridge,
which makes the whole thing double confusing and thus
possibly-not-reflecting-the-will-of-the-people) decided to for the first
time empower the board to Do Things. Naomi has suggested that a
not-too-large quantity of people actually voted in this election.

The magnitude of this change really does require some lengthier discussion
with the community at large, to seek buy-in. The larger the change, the
more input should be sought to shape direction.

Let's remember that consensus is a process of making decisions through
discussion and synthesis... not through expediency, invisibility, and
obfuscation. Therefore, I do think the decision to empower the board in the
first place was invalid.

For example, I have served on the board with Al in the past during the time
when the board supposed to do nothing, and was elected with this
understanding (like all previous boards until supposedly this one).  Had I
known that he was being elected to a do-something board, I might have
become more involved.

Let's remember something we should all have learned in sex ed class:
silence does not equal consent.

R.
On Mar 27, 2014 9:00 AM, "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/20140327/44d71d47/attachment.html>