[Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their place
danny at spesh.com
Thu Dec 19 03:58:19 UTC 2013
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's in the meeting notes:
> Basically, Danny blocks because other people would block. Kevin blocks
> because Noisebridge is a collaborative space and majority voting would undo
> or impinge on that. I encourage them (or anyone else) to correct this
> description, but it's what I came away from the meeting with. (And, of
> course, if Danny and Kevin don't have time to reply to the list, that
> doesn't mean they implicitly agree with my description.)
Al, I didn't block. It's the first week. You can't block then. You're
just supposed to mull things around a bit, and chew a hay stalk while
you do so. I am, however, allowed to express my opinion that this
would not go anywhere. I may be wrong.
> The "other people who would block" I can only take a guess at, and half of
> them aren't even living in SF anymore. If I try to read people's minds about
> this issue I'm going to fail; I'd rather have them chime in on the mailing
> list or show up at a meeting if they have strong feelings about this.
Maybe a good way of finding out people's feelings is by going through
the mailing list and reading people's replies every other time you've
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
>> Al Sweigart wrote, On 2013-12-18 18:44:
>> > The most common tactic in Noisebridge politics is to get people to stop
>> > speaking up about issues.
>> Then that sounds like an entirely different issue that needs attention.
>> Don't cut off the finger when all that is needed is a bandage.
>> If I were you I would call out those members.
>> rubin at starset.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss