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

Thu Mar 27 16:26:21 UTC 2014

As an aside, Al, I don't think it's accurate to say that Noisebridge policy
can be changed by 2/3 consensus under these rules. At the last Tuesday
meeting, I asked the members of the board to give a list of things that (in
their view at least) are no longer up for consensus, and it ranged from
banning to basic spending decisions. The strong impression I got was that
the Board determines what is or is not up for consensus, which isn't really
in the spirit of the thing.
On Mar 27, 2014 8:51 AM, "davidfine" <d at vidfine.com> wrote:

>  Noisebridge board: don't vote on things the same day they are proposed.
> Good process requires seeking input from all board members.
> Al: you did not make an attempt to work with Naomi in this case. That is
> why people question the validity of the board's decision.
> --D
>
> On 3/27/14, 4:00 AM, Naomi Gmail wrote:
>
> You have my utmost and truest word that I am trying to promote a good
> process here.
>
>  THAT is why I refuse to discuss any specific issues about this proposal:
> it is a distraction from a very serious problem that needs to be solved
> *first*.
>
>  I did explicitly say "go ahead and discuss in the hypothetical".  Did
> you notice?
>
>  I am objecting to the tacit promulgation of "decisions" made through bad
> process (re: 2/3 consensus).
>
>  Post without that specific block i called out, and you're fine.
>
>  --Naomi
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   I am just exasperated with you. I know we disagree on many things, but
> the way you keep slapping down any attempt I make to work with you, well,
> makes it very hard to work with you.
>
>  I know it doesn't look like it to you, but I am bending over backwards
> trying to accommodate you and every other critic. And I will continue to
> bend over even more:
>
>  Naomi, I will talk to the board about reverting the policy changes made
> on Monday. BUT, I need to know that if the board we passes similar policies
> at the next board meeting, that you won't declare that those policies are
> also bogus for some contrived reason. I think my worry about goal-post
> moving is valid here; already Kevin keeps declaring that the board doesn't
> have the support of the membership because we didn't win with a -large
> enough- majority.
>
>  I need to know that this is truly about your concern for proper process
> according to Noisebridge's bylaws, and not just your own attempt to take
> down some policies you don't like.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>     I did read your emails very carefully.  And this part specifically:
>>
>>
>>   Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change
>> Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus.
>>
>>
>>
>>  This is the part where you make the presumption that the "2/3's
>> consensus" has been legitimately accepted. This is acting in bad faith,
>> because it is part of that massive overgrown proposal, and what's more it
>> happens to be own stated pet issue to boot.
>>
>>  I just... you continue to test all credulity in your even having a
>> sense of ethics.
>>
>>  --Naomi
>>
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Naomi, please stop accusing me of bad faith EVERY SINGLE TIME that I
>> make a good faith attempt to communicate about things. You've already
>> refused to even discuss your own objections to these policies, but other
>> people might want to air their grievances or comments.
>>
>>  I wish you would at least read my emails before you jump in with
>> accusations: "Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to
>> change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in
>> stone and are open to change, just as they have always been."
>>
>>  I started this thread to talk specifically about the "Noisebridge
>> Membership" section, and in your VERY FIRST SENTENCE you derail the
>> conversation with begging the question. It is _very_ frustrating trying to
>> work with you when you act this way.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Al: why are you acting in bad faith here?
>>>
>>>  We agreed as a board to revisit the process by which these policy
>>> changes came about in the first place and YOU even proposed reverting them
>>> to put these changes through a more legitimized board discussion process.
>>>
>>>  Why are you putting these discussion items forth as if these changes
>>> were already in effect?
>>>
>>>  Discuss as hypothetical all you want.  I encourage it.  Although why
>>> you didn't bother doing this /before/ voting on a massive board proposal
>>> that /could/ have been broken down into pieces like these is a great
>>> mystery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   There's a lot of talk on the mailing list about the latest board
>>> policies. I'd like to focus on segments individually so that discussion can
>>> happen about which parts people agree with an which parts people don't.
>>>
>>>  Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change
>>> Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone
>>> and are open to change, just as they have always been.
>>>
>>>  This thread concerns the "Noisebridge Membership" section on
>>> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.mdwhich reads:
>>>
>>>  =====
>>>  There is one category of Noisebridge membership.
>>>
>>>  Noisebridge membership dues are $80 per month. In case of financial
>>> hardship, the treasurer may choose to allow a member to pay dues at one
>>> half of the normal rate.
>>>  =====
>>>
>>>  My own commentary about this section:
>>>
>>>  This is a change from the two-tiered membership that was created by
>>> consensus last year. I'm very much in favor of this part: I understand that
>>> the two-tiered membership was created because the barrier to becoming a
>>> capital-M member was very high, but the concept of a hierarchy of
>>> membership has always bothered me.
>>>
>>>  The dues part is also a change away from optional member dues. This
>>> part I'm less enthusiastic about. I know Kevin wanted to roll back the
>>> consensus item that created optional dues. My concerns are that 1) I'd
>>> prefer if members chose themselves whether or not they paid the "starving
>>> hacker" rate instead of the treasurer and 2) I'm okay with mandatory dues
>>> for membership but the fact that Noisebridge is members only means that
>>> money does technical come into access to the space. (Only technically
>>> though, members can brings guests as always and, let's face it, no one
>>> really enforces the members-only policy.) I think this is something that
>>> could be changed.
>>>
>>>  Any other comments about this section?
>>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing listNoisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.nethttps://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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/2130ac1b/attachment-0003.html>