[Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their place
bfb at riseup.net
Thu Dec 19 16:56:50 UTC 2013
Al and Madelynn,
Both in this thread and at the last meeting I have been overwhelmed with the sense that this will never become a dialog. It feels like an epic monolog that's bound to flame out.
But let' try anyway...
What I did say on Tuesday was that 1. I didn't know where to begin and 2. Quoted the first line from noisebridge.net "Noisebridge is an infrastructure provider for technical-creative projects, collaboratively run by our members." Which is to say, not only a space where collaboration happens, but a space collaboratively run by our members. Your proposal derides this statement in two ways. 1. Moving to a majoritarian system creates less opportunity for collaboration on decision making and 2. It hands over the process to a board of directors from the hands of the membership.
-------- Original message --------
From: Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
Date:12/18/2013 19:06 (GMT-08:00)
To: Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net>
Cc: noisebridge-discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their place
It's in the meeting notes: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_12_17
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.)
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.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss