[Noisebridge-discuss] Alternative proposal for the Noisebridge council list
adrian.chadd at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 18:49:16 UTC 2014
On 14 March 2014 11:35, Tom Lowenthal <me at tomlowenthal.com> wrote:
> Howdy folks,
> I have an idea for a compromise between transparency and anonymity.
> I've made my case in issue #19 on our `bureaucracy` repo. Go tell me
> which parts of the idea need more work.
> I want to re-iterate my reasoning for all this.
> I think it's unreasonable that only the secretary knows who is on the
> council. I think that - at least - everyone on the council, and -
> ideally - everyone involved with Noisebridge should be able to see
> who's on the council. I'm sure I'd find it super frustrating not to
> reliably know. I think it makes consensus clunkier and more awkward,
> if that's possible.
> As secretary, I hate having to judge the worthiness of a request. When
> I started out, my interpretation of our cultural norm was that I
> should be ultra-conservative. If someone asked me for the list,
> should interrogate them as to why, and try to persuade them that they
> don't want it. I hate that, it makes me feel like a jerk (more than
> usual). It also feels like I have too much clout to approve or deny
> requests. I think that the secretary should be a record-keeper and
> administrative assistant, not a gatekeeper.
I don't think you should discount the secrecy / anonymity aspects that
are rooted in quite real examples of law enforcement and corporate
"lulz". I'm sure that there are plenty of people in tech in the bay
area that don't want their names or faces linked to, well, anything.
There's very likely examples of people (Hi Jacob!) who have first hand
experience of what it's like to be unable to work without intense
So to me it's a bit like wikileaks - to be a legitimate organisation
that can take tax deductible donations, have a physical space and such
- then someone has to front that. Someone or some group has to be
publicly available and responsible - and this may expose them to a
level of scrutiny that they've not really experienced yet.
There's also making it easier as a target of blame and scrutiny from
the local community - both members and non-members. This place has
proven to be "colourful" in the past and I'm sure you'll be the target
for a lot of that from disgruntled and upset people.
So, for those who are on the board - great! I applaud you for wanting
to stick your neck out and giving any kind of care in this kind of
environment. Woo! And I respect that you are sticking your collective
necks out in an environment that could get you more exposure, cop more
crap from the community, and generally put you in uncomfortable
For that I say thank you.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss