[Noisebridge-discuss] this is what cognitive dissonance looks like

Thu Mar 27 20:37:56 UTC 2014

>
> Also a misunderstanding: we jumped the gun on announcing the decision.
> Because we had a super-majority vote in favor of it and wanted it discussed
> at the member meeting, we announced that it had been decided before you
> could weigh in. Our thoughts were that the proposal would either be
> unanimous or 4/5 in favor, but either way it would have passed the board. I
> will talk to the board about rolling it back, and we can re-vote on it at
> the next board meeting.

I fully concur.  Its just not certain if what was announced was just that
most of the board agreed with an approach, or it was something that was a
board action.   Rather than leave it uncertain, it should happen at a
regularly scheduled board meeting.

Its almost certaint that the "maybe mistake" actually  draw focused
attention to this matter, and more than anything else could have, to
guarantee that it will be made after full discussion, from the board, from
the associate members, and other stake holders.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> Naomi, you immediately jump to concluding I'm working on bad faith when
> it's just a misunderstanding to clear up.
>
> To clear up: I told Spinach that it is hard to get 5 people to meet at the
> same time for a meeting. The 24 hour proposal that you mention was
> different; it was for discussing issues after they've been presented on
> github, and it's a lot easier for people to asynchronously check out things
> on a website over a 24 hour period. Ari is the one who presented it, my
> being an "immediate proponent" was that I said I agreed with it. I'm not
> trying to pull another fast one. Then you brought up your concerns that 24
> hours was too short and suggested a week, we talked a bit about it, and I
> even proposed a process that has a week-long discussion period. We were on
> track to working something out (I'll comment more on github, I've been busy
> with other email this morning unfortunately).
>
> Also a misunderstanding: we jumped the gun on announcing the decision.
> Because we had a super-majority vote in favor of it and wanted it discussed
> at the member meeting, we announced that it had been decided before you
> could weigh in. Our thoughts were that the proposal would either be
> unanimous or 4/5 in favor, but either way it would have passed the board. I
> will talk to the board about rolling it back, and we can re-vote on it at
> the next board meeting.
>
> Also, just to clarify, because after reading Mitch's email I want to know
> if I'm on the same page as others: I hold that the Noisebridge bylaws are
> valid and cannot be ignored by the board or membership. Naomi, when you
> say "You have my utmost and truest word that I am trying to promote a
> good process here." you do mean the process for the board
> making decisions as outlined in the Noisebridge bylaws, right?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>

-- 
Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/17133692/attachment-0003.html>