[Noisebridge-discuss] Please Note: Bureaucracy Changes Reverted
naomi at nthmost.com
Sat Mar 29 05:39:29 UTC 2014
Thanks Scotty. I, for one, am majorly on the side of "take it slow,
one thing at a time". And community support and understanding should
be priority one.
I have a good deal of confidence that we're back on a productive track.
On a more tangential note: I hope we, the board, will work with
greater transparency from now on.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Scotty Allen <scotty at scottyallen.com> wrote:
> Madelynn, I wanted to thank you, and the rest of the board, both for
> all the hard work and energy you're putting into trying to restore NB
> to it's former glory through a more active board, but also for the
> integrity you've shown in reverting this first attempt at changing
> some fundamental things about how Noisebridge functions.
> I'm a south bay hacker who has a dear love for noisebridge but mostly
> watches from the sidelines due not having the time to drive up to SF
> often enough. I wish Hackerdojo displayed the vibrancy and energy for
> hardware and non-startup hacking that NB does.
> That being said, I wanted to give a bit of constructive advice, which
> you and the rest of the board very well might have already figured out
> from your initial efforts: please communicate with the broader
> community more, particularly the _why_ in addition to the what.
> From my perspective, it took me a while reading the github documents
> to even figure out what you had changed, and it certainly wasn't
> immediately clear what your motives were for specific changes. My
> guess is that this led to a lot of speculation, even though I think
> you and the other board members had the utmost of good intentions.
> I think it would be great if you could find a balance between your new
> active role in making some sorely needed changes, and communicating
> those effectively in advance with the membership and broader
> community. I'm not saying don't make the changes you're making - just
> move a little bit slower and spend more effort to get broader buy-in
> about what you're doing, through explaining the reasons, motivations,
> and thought process.
> Those of us waiting and watching from the sidelines would love to come
> back and be more involved in NB when it's a bit safer/less sketchy
> physical place to be where other hackers are actually hacking.
> With great love and respect for NB and it's community,
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Madelynn Martiniere
> <mmartiniere at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The board of directors has reverted the changes to /bureaucracy until
>> further discussion with the greater Noisebridge can be had. Policies to add
>> required discussion periods are also in motion within the board to make sure
>> that incidents like this do not occur again. Given the gravity of this
>> decision, this is a one-time exception, not a precedent.
>> I believe Naomi put it best in a previous post to the list:
>> "This "active board" thing is in its infancy. We only just decided at the
>> ONE meeting we have had so far, what the rules of engagement and proper
>> process were.
>> Were we supposed to have gotten it right on the first try? No.
>> Could I have imagined that the insanity that transpired this first week
>> would ever take place? Hell no."
>> The decision to have the board take an active role I think is a pivotal one
>> in improving some the issues that Noisebridge has been facing increasingly
>> over the years. But neither I, nor the rest of the board, have any intention
>> of disempowering the membership, turning Noisebridge into a dictatorship, or
>> any of the language I have heard used over the last few days. We want to be
>> in service to the membership, not to rule over it.
>> My offer to have a productive dialogue with anyone who has feedback on this
>> process still stands.
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss