[Noisebridge-discuss] It doesn't matter if you like consensus
Mitch Altman
maltman23 at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 27 19:00:44 UTC 2014
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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list