[Noisebridge-discuss] [Drama] Fwd: [Noisebridge-announce] Important Noisebridge Procedural Changes

[rachel lyra hospodar]

Have you ever actually put out an actual fire? Do you know how in theory or
in practice or both?

Is the goal here to put out the fire?

Then fucking act like it, and take a minute to think about how to remove
the fuel instead of running around like chicken little bemoaning how the
sky is falling because the bad kind of drugs are taking over from the good
kinds.

One of my first all-night-hack sessions at Noisebridge in 2009 or so was
accompanied by a quiet little hiss-crack all night long from goth kids in
the library having a nitrous death guild afterparty. Why does Noisebridge
have the wrong kind of people offering you the wrong kind of drugs now?

What are the wrong kinds of drugs?

Meth is bad, don't get me wrong. It's provably toxic to people who use it.
I think it's interesting to try and contextualize increased meth use in the
space with shifts in the broader socioeconomic context that supports
nosiebridge.

Want less homeless drug users doing drugs that make themselves worse?

Build a better society.

R.
On Mar 26, 2014 7:09 AM, "Will Sargent" <will.sargent at gmail.com> wrote:

> What Jessica said, in spades.
>
> Noisebridge not only has people sleeping in the space on a regular basis,
> it has people being offered meth in the space.
>
>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043062.html
>
> What I find really damning is not even that someone was offered meth in
> the space.  It's the reaction that Monad had from the people in the space.
>  No-one helped him.  Only one person even offered to identify him, and one
> guy expressed the opinion that no-one should *ever* be banned.
>
> If this is normal, tolerated behavior in the space now, then yes: shit is
> on fire.
>
> Will.
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Jessica Ross <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I hate to say it, but, from here, it looks like you guys are on fire.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would argue that a very fundamental part of Noisebridge charter is to
>>> in fact listen to and attempt to incorporate rather than override a
>>> dissenting opinion.
>>>
>>> There is always time to mull things over, unless something is on fire.
>>>
>>> Also, I would like to note the difference between formally and formerly
>>> and humbly submit a pull request to the whole announcement due to whiplash
>>> and confusion. What the fuck kind of members are we talking about, formal
>>> ones? If I wear a tuxedo on the sixth Tuesday of a given month do I get a
>>> say in how Noisebridge works?  Ah yes, do-ocratic voting. I hereby decree a
>>> new class of Noisebridge members, the formal kind. Please discuss.
>>>
>>> R.
>>> On Mar 25, 2014 8:48 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why did you reply to this thread if you didn't want to talk about this
>>>> publicly? You can't just say "Disregard" and expect that no one else will
>>>> comment on this commandment.
>>>>
>>>>  I told Tom that I agreed with the proposal, so it's 4 out of 5.
>>>>
>>>> Your humble opinion aside, decisions do not require a unanimous vote of
>>>> the board. The bylaws of Noisebridge don't say it does and have never said
>>>> that. "Naomi does not agree" is not "the board does not agree".
>>>>
>>>> -Al
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh goody, let's make this public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Al, the issues in question were proposed 7 hours ago, during which
>>>>> time I was at work. Then I went to yoga.  Then I found when I decided
>>>>> to check my email that about 10 different issues were all lumped
>>>>> together in a single "proposal" and that 2 people had voted "+1" on
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 + the person who proposed the changes = 3.  3 out of 5 is a positive
>>>>> vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> These changes were then implemented *immediately*.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, the board did not "agree", because "agreement" cannot occur in a
>>>>> situation where discussion did not take place.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already put in a proposal within the board that proposals can't
>>>>> be voted upon and carried out until one full week has passed.  I can't
>>>>> believe I had to do that, but apparently some people think that
>>>>> "agreement" can be reached without discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Membership: discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Naomi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jessica R. Ross
>> jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/fea7d0c8/attachment-0003.html>