[Noisebridge-discuss] Please Note: Bureaucracy Changes Reverted
scotty at scottyallen.com
Sat Mar 29 01:02:29 UTC 2014
Madelynn, I wanted to thank you, and the rest of the board, both for
all the hard work and energy you're putting into trying to restore NB
to it's former glory through a more active board, but also for the
integrity you've shown in reverting this first attempt at changing
some fundamental things about how Noisebridge functions.
I'm a south bay hacker who has a dear love for noisebridge but mostly
watches from the sidelines due not having the time to drive up to SF
often enough. I wish Hackerdojo displayed the vibrancy and energy for
hardware and non-startup hacking that NB does.
That being said, I wanted to give a bit of constructive advice, which
you and the rest of the board very well might have already figured out
from your initial efforts: please communicate with the broader
community more, particularly the _why_ in addition to the what.
>From my perspective, it took me a while reading the github documents
to even figure out what you had changed, and it certainly wasn't
immediately clear what your motives were for specific changes. My
guess is that this led to a lot of speculation, even though I think
you and the other board members had the utmost of good intentions.
I think it would be great if you could find a balance between your new
active role in making some sorely needed changes, and communicating
those effectively in advance with the membership and broader
community. I'm not saying don't make the changes you're making - just
move a little bit slower and spend more effort to get broader buy-in
about what you're doing, through explaining the reasons, motivations,
and thought process.
Those of us waiting and watching from the sidelines would love to come
back and be more involved in NB when it's a bit safer/less sketchy
physical place to be where other hackers are actually hacking.
With great love and respect for NB and it's community,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Madelynn Martiniere
<mmartiniere at gmail.com> wrote:
> The board of directors has reverted the changes to /bureaucracy until
> further discussion with the greater Noisebridge can be had. Policies to add
> required discussion periods are also in motion within the board to make sure
> that incidents like this do not occur again. Given the gravity of this
> decision, this is a one-time exception, not a precedent.
> I believe Naomi put it best in a previous post to the list:
> "This "active board" thing is in its infancy. We only just decided at the
> ONE meeting we have had so far, what the rules of engagement and proper
> process were.
> Were we supposed to have gotten it right on the first try? No.
> Could I have imagined that the insanity that transpired this first week
> would ever take place? Hell no."
> The decision to have the board take an active role I think is a pivotal one
> in improving some the issues that Noisebridge has been facing increasingly
> over the years. But neither I, nor the rest of the board, have any intention
> of disempowering the membership, turning Noisebridge into a dictatorship, or
> any of the language I have heard used over the last few days. We want to be
> in service to the membership, not to rule over it.
> My offer to have a productive dialogue with anyone who has feedback on this
> process still stands.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss