[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's talk about: Noisebridge Membership
asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 09:59:07 UTC 2014
Naomi, please stop accusing me of bad faith EVERY SINGLE TIME that I make a
good faith attempt to communicate about things. You've already refused to
even discuss your own objections to these policies, but other people might
want to air their grievances or comments.
I wish you would at least read my emails before you jump in with
accusations: "Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to
change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in
stone and are open to change, just as they have always been."
I started this thread to talk specifically about the "Noisebridge
Membership" section, and in your VERY FIRST SENTENCE you derail the
conversation with begging the question. It is _very_ frustrating trying to
work with you when you act this way.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Al: why are you acting in bad faith here?
> We agreed as a board to revisit the process by which these policy changes
> came about in the first place and YOU even proposed reverting them to put
> these changes through a more legitimized board discussion process.
> Why are you putting these discussion items forth as if these changes were
> already in effect?
> Discuss as hypothetical all you want. I encourage it. Although why you
> didn't bother doing this /before/ voting on a massive board proposal that
> /could/ have been broken down into pieces like these is a great mystery.
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a lot of talk on the mailing list about the latest board policies.
> I'd like to focus on segments individually so that discussion can happen
> about which parts people agree with an which parts people don't.
> Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change
> Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone
> and are open to change, just as they have always been.
> This thread concerns the "Noisebridge Membership" section on
> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.mdwhich reads:
> There is one category of Noisebridge membership.
> Noisebridge membership dues are $80 per month. In case of financial
> hardship, the treasurer may choose to allow a member to pay dues at one
> half of the normal rate.
> My own commentary about this section:
> This is a change from the two-tiered membership that was created by
> consensus last year. I'm very much in favor of this part: I understand that
> the two-tiered membership was created because the barrier to becoming a
> capital-M member was very high, but the concept of a hierarchy of
> membership has always bothered me.
> The dues part is also a change away from optional member dues. This part
> I'm less enthusiastic about. I know Kevin wanted to roll back the consensus
> item that created optional dues. My concerns are that 1) I'd prefer if
> members chose themselves whether or not they paid the "starving hacker"
> rate instead of the treasurer and 2) I'm okay with mandatory dues for
> membership but the fact that Noisebridge is members only means that money
> does technical come into access to the space. (Only technically though,
> members can brings guests as always and, let's face it, no one really
> enforces the members-only policy.) I think this is something that could be
> Any other comments about this section?
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss