[Rack] [Noisebridge-discuss] Trimmed off the board list

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 21:27:16 UTC 2014


Kevin, this probably goes without saying, but I am very interested in
investigating the logistics of a recall.

-Al


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:

> On March 26, 2014 1:55:53 PM PDT, spinach williams <
> spinach.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > it is also disingenuous to announce a range of 50+%-80+% support for
> > each
> > board member when turnout was only 50%. also, when turnout is 50% and
> > someone voices concern about the process of notification and conduct
> > of the
> > vote, that needs to be taken seriously rather than such a large number
> > of
> > absentees written off immediately. also, after quietly rushing a vote
> > through, it's further disingenuous to claim a person who counted the
> > votes
> > is just upset with the final count. worst of all is responding to
> > people
> > voicing their concern with invalidation and simultaneously calling for
> > discussion. let people speak, and let's not pretend a recall has never
> > happened.
> > On Mar 26, 2014 1:38 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Naomi, I wouldn't say your reasons are bullshit, but yeah, if your
> > vote is
> > > important to you then you should have taken it more seriously.
> > >
> > > Kevin, it's disingenuous to claim that the people who didn't vote
> > > automatically don't support the board, just as it would be for me to
> > claim
> > > that all the non-voters would have supported the board members if
> > they had
> > > voted. None of us are mind readers. The way we resolve things are by
> > > discussing them.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'd say the voting process was a bit more obscure than it should
> > have
> > >> been.
> > >>
> > >> The reason -- the very bullshit reason, I will readily admit, but
> > here
> > >> it goes -- that I didn't end up voting was because:
> > >>
> > >> * I was at a meeting where votes were being taken, and got to
> > talking
> > >> about something or other, and then the person taking votes was
> > >> suddenly not there.
> > >>
> > >> * I thought, "Oh, I still have a week."
> > >>
> > >> * I didn't see anything on the list about voting, for a week (you
> > can
> > >> check the archives, there wasn't anything posted about voting that
> > >> week).  I didn't know whom to contact (this is bullshit, I admit
> > it),
> > >> so I just waited and intended to go to the NB meeting.
> > >>
> > >> * Something came up (literally, I was sick) and I couldn't go to
> > the
> > >> NB meeting.  :p
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> My lackadaisical attitude towards voting came mostly from the
> > >> historical nature of the board being a symbolic group with no real
> > >> responsibilities or power.  I do not think I am alone in that.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> IN THE FUTURE, board elections will need to be more in-your-face,
> > >> involving posters and website blink-tags reminding people not just
> > TO
> > >> vote but instructing on HOW to vote.
> > >>
> > >> And I hope no one is going to argue that "it was on the wiki",
> > because
> > >> that is one of the most weedy, un-navigable pieces of information
> > >> architecture I have ever seen.
> > >>
> > >> --Naomi
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > That's actually better turnout than at the last couple of
> > elections, I
> > >> > believe.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm hearing different things from different people. I want to
> > address a
> > >> few
> > >> > things:
> > >> >
> > >> > The polls were open for weeks, so I don't think you can say
> > people
> > >> weren't
> > >> > given enough time to vote.
> > >> > Kevin himself conducted the election, so I don't think you can
> > say the
> > >> > voting process was illegitimate.
> > >> > Not only did the board members get elected, they got elected with
> > >> between
> > >> > 53% and 84% of the total votes in a system that doesn't even
> > require a
> > >> > majority to be elected, so I don't think you can say "Noisebridge
> > >> members do
> > >> > not support the board".
> > >> >
> > >> > But Kevin, you'll always be able to come up with some goal-post
> > moving
> > >> > standard that people fail to live up to. If you say the board
> > doesn't
> > >> have
> > >> > the support of Noisebridge, not that the alternative has *even
> > less*.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Al
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On March 26, 2014 10:59:17 AM PDT, Jeffrey Carl Faden
> > >> >> <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > 13? Isn't that close to the amount of members Noisebridge has?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Naomi Most
> > <pnaomi at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > We're working on it.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > By the way, that "overwhelming support" came in the form of
> > about
> > >> 13
> > >> >> > > actual people voting.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Just some food for thought....
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > --Naomi
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
> > >> >> > > <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > I personally envision a transparent process, with time for
> > >> >> > discussion and
> > >> >> > > > space made for dissenting views to be heard and
> > incorporated.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > We sometimes have done this. We call this,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Consensus.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > They told us it was radical and we said, we think it is an
> > >> >> > interesting
> > >> >> > > way
> > >> >> > > > to make decisions. Call us radicals then.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > If the board is empowered to do things they need at least
> > reach
> > >> >> > consensus
> > >> >> > > > within themselves. The fact that there is dissent even
> > within
> > >> such
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > small
> > >> >> > > > group means that the solution needs some editing.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > R.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > >> >> > > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > >> >> > > >
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > --
> > >> >> > > Naomi Theora Most
> > >> >> > > naomi at nthmost.com
> > >> >> > > +1-415-728-7490
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > skype: nthmost
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > http://twitter.com/nthmost
> > >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > > 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
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That's about 50% turnout. Additionally,  the least voted for
> > member of
> > >> the
> > >> >> BoD had the support of 7. A far cry from overwhelming support.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> +1 to refactoring the board roster
> > >> >>
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > >> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > >> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Naomi Theora Most
> > >> naomi at nthmost.com
> > >> +1-415-728-7490
> > >>
> > >> skype: nthmost
> > >>
> > >> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
> Anyone interested in investigating the logistics of a recall may contact
> me off list.
>
> Also, can we have an admin-oversight list to help organize the effort?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/rack/attachments/20140326/270dbc66/attachment.html>


More information about the Rack mailing list