[Noisebridge-discuss] [Drama] Fwd: [Noisebridge-announce] Important Noisebridge Procedural Changes

Naomi Most naomi at nthmost.com
Wed Mar 26 08:31:19 UTC 2014


In other words: discussion happened between 80% of the board
membership, and 20% of the board membership was left in the dark until
roughly 9 hours ago.

Good clarification.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Madelynn Martiniere
<mmartiniere at gmail.com> wrote:
> I 100% agree that there should be discussion on this topic.
>
> Under the procedure that we agreed upon in the first Board of Directors
> meeting (available on the wiki), we decided as a group (with full
> participation) that:
>
> Board to use private github issue tracker
>
> Decisions can be made on the tracker: proposal contains "PROPOSAL", once
> proposal has board-majority support.
>
> There was discussion over the duration of about a week both online and off
> between myself, Ari, Al, and Tom before and after the proposal had been
> made. We did reach majority quickly once it was posted and after issues were
> raised and amended.
>
> Based on the procedure we had agreed upon as the board, I wanted to make
> this information known to the Noisebridge community as soon as possible so
> that there could be discussion online and offline. Unfortunately that
> agreement did come very close to the beginning of the meeting, but I can
> assure you that was not intentional.
>
> I hope this helps clarify a bit more, and I will continue to contribute to
> discussion and answer questions/concerns tomorrow.
>
> Madelynn
>
>
>
> ************
>
>
> I wasn't being sarcastic.  I was hoping for a public discussion.
>
> Membership:  please discuss the idea that board "agreements" can
> happen without all of the board having time to read, comment on, and
> raise concerns (if any) about what's been proposed.
>
> Actually, I don't think "agreement" should ever happen outside of
> board meetings.  It's not like we're not meeting enough.  Twice a
> month, actually.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Why did you reply to this thread if you didn't want to talk about this
>> publicly? You can't just say "Disregard" and expect that no one else will
>> comment on this commandment.
>>
>> I told Tom that I agreed with the proposal, so it's 4 out of 5.
>>
>> Your humble opinion aside, decisions do not require a unanimous vote of
>> the
>> board. The bylaws of Noisebridge don't say it does and have never said
>> that.
>> "Naomi does not agree" is not "the board does not agree".
>>
>> -Al
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh goody, let's make this public.
>>>
>>> Al, the issues in question were proposed 7 hours ago, during which
>>> time I was at work. Then I went to yoga.  Then I found when I decided
>>> to check my email that about 10 different issues were all lumped
>>> together in a single "proposal" and that 2 people had voted "+1" on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> 2 + the person who proposed the changes = 3.  3 out of 5 is a positive
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> These changes were then implemented *immediately*.
>>>
>>> IMHO, the board did not "agree", because "agreement" cannot occur in a
>>> situation where discussion did not take place.
>>>
>>> I have already put in a proposal within the board that proposals can't
>>> be voted upon and carried out until one full week has passed.  I can't
>>> believe I had to do that, but apparently some people think that
>>> "agreement" can be reached without discussion.
>>>
>>> Membership: discuss.
>>>
>>> --Naomi
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>
>
> --
> Madelynn Martiniere
> Community Engineer. Entrepreneur. Geek.
> LinkedIn | Twitter | Email
>
>



-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list