[Noisebridge-discuss] Please Note: Bureaucracy Changes Reverted

Matthew Senate mattsenate at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 01:45:14 UTC 2014

Have the members of the board considered simply being active *members *rather
than active *board members*?

The nature of do-ocracy is to pre-process, create parallel threads,
reduce/filter/harmonize, come back in to the wider collective, publish
early and often, stay transparent, get feedback, improve, and collaborate
with other individuals, clusters, groups, and through this process engage
the whole community. Why not simply participate, horizontally, with
everyone else? Or at the very least, if you want an "active" group, to
decouple it from the authority of the corporation's Board of Directors?

For instance, your task as any "active" group could be to isolate concrete
and discrete issues that Noisebridge currently has, so that relevant and
effective remedies can begin to be articulated. Why not make a list and
publish it to all, ask for and let folks incorporate feedback? Maybe an
item on that list would be "decision-making" and I'd love to see what
precise issues exist in that regard.

Unless your actions as a board limit your own power, or distribute power
among more people, then otherwise, to be an "active board" is to be
hierarchical. There is no way around that.

To be "active members" you have my sincerest, deepest respect and

// Matt

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Scotty Allen <scotty at scottyallen.com>wrote:

> 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,
> Scotty
> 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Madelynn
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140328/265809c1/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list