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

davidfine d at vidfine.com
Thu Mar 27 20:47:36 UTC 2014

First, thanks Al for taking these concerns seriously and back-peddling a
bit. Remember moving forward that the board was never intended to be a
powerful decision making body. Its power comes from setting the tone and
to some extent the content of discussions. The board collaborates on
proposals for membership to approve and then rubber stamps their
decision. Or in rare cases refuses to rubber stamp because of bad
process or existential threats. You are gatekeepers in that respect.
Historical background, the board was created to fulfill requirements of
a 501-c3 and was sort of seen as a necessary evil. 
The choice to make the board a weak body was intended to make NB
resilient to being steered into the ground by spies and squatters alike.
You are the guardians of consensus process. May the force be with you.

On 3/27/14, 9:34 AM, Al Sweigart wrote:
> David, I read the proposals that Tom had written up, made some
> suggestions, and then gave the changes my +1 on its github issue
> comments page. Tom, Madelynn, and Ari did the same. We had 4 out of 5
> board members in favor of the proposals. It didn't seem to us that
> this was a giant leap to consider the proposal passed at this point.
> Also...

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list