[Noisebridge-discuss] noisebridge / the door is fucked up

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Fri Mar 7 21:33:03 UTC 2014


I am still in a status of having ragequat, but I feel it's
(non)incumbent on me to say that having the board take a more active
role seems to be the best way within Noisebridge's constitutional
arrangements to make this sort of top-down change.

I do wish a bit that this stance had been more explicit in the
election process, but I can't believe that anybody voting wouldn't
have thought that Al and others wouldn't be taking a more active role
in that way. For instance, enforcing the terms of the lease is
something that we all know should be done, and seems at least to me to
be in the board's remit.

d.


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Al, Great post.  People want to have hope for Noisebridge, and it
> would be great if the brd of directors does Direct.   As you says, that's a
> legal responsibility.   With the  near crisis conditions at Noisebridge, its
> a necessary that Board exercises purposes.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jake and all,
>>
>> I understand your frustration, because it's one I've had too. I think that
>> there are a few people at Noisebridge who like it being a clubhouse or a
>> place with free rent (but only for their friends, not the general public, of
>> course) and use consensus so that they can prevent anyone from changing
>> this. For all the anarchist rhetoric, Noisebridge is the most conservative
>> organization I've ever been a part of.
>>
>> People sleeping overnight at the space has been a problem FOR YEARS.
>> People living out of the space and storing their personal things there has
>> been a problem FOR YEARS.
>> Being unable to get rid of people who abuse and steal from others or
>> regularly get stoned/drunk/loud/unexcellent has been a problem FOR YEARS.
>>
>> The bylaws of Noisebridge (our Constitution, as it were) state that the
>> board of directors makes all the executive decisions for the organization.
>> It's just that the board has deferred to the consensus process in the past.
>> I believe this is precisely why these problems are so hard to fix, including
>> when I served on the board in 2011.
>>
>> Members have gotten tired of this, which is why a board that wants to take
>> a more active hand in stopping these abuses has been voted in.
>>
>> Jake, I know we're going to have to start proving ourselves with deeds
>> instead of just words, but you're a great contributor to the space. Making
>> Noisebridge more welcoming to hackers like you is exactly what we want to do
>> in 2014.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 March 2014 23:27, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>> > not much, i was just stirred to action by the self-congratulatory
>>> > progress
>>> > of electing a meaningless board while the ship that is noisebridge
>>> > slowly
>>> > fills with sewage while waiting for a crew.
>>> >
>>> > what was i supposed to do, threaten to hold my breath until changes are
>>> > made?
>>>
>>> I believe the answer is "grab a plunger" ?
>>>
>>> (which you did, right?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -a
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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