[Noisebridge-discuss] Trimmed off the board list

Callme Whatiwant nejucomo at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 00:17:55 UTC 2014


I just want to highlight a particularly troublesome form of
communication.  I can't help myself because it's just being repeated
over and over here and has a nicely graspable handle:

The term "disingenuous" is an adjective which therefore sounds like an
objective quality of some speech.  It's *very definition* however
depends on facts about the intent of the speaker of "disingenuous"
speech.  Geek culture, in particular, appears vulnerable for
masquerading subjective feelings in pseudo-objective language like
this.

The only way I could call some speech disingenuous *accurately* would
be if I can read the mind of the speech's author.  For me, that means
I can only accurately use the term when describing my own speech.

So please, be honest, and instead of saying: "To say X is
disingenuous." say what's really true: "I, personally, don't feel
trusting when I hear you say X."

Now we are getting somewhere.  Really?  We don't feel trust with each
other?  Then why are we spending our time and effort on a
collaborative project?  Is there some way we can improve feelings of
trust in each other?

Could it be possible that each person who said something
"disingenuous" had an honest motivation for saying what they did?
Could it be that we each are interpreting these "objective"
statistical assertions differently, and that these statements are
actually much more ambiguous than our single interpretation leads us
to believe?

Try rereading it:


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> I obviously meant 50 to 80 percent of the people who voted. Like I said, I
> can't read minds and don't assume that those who didn't vote automatically
> support or oppose the board.
>
> I'm not being sarcastic Spinach, I do want to discuss things (like we are
> doing now). Because I say Kevin's words are disingenuous doesn't prevent him
> from emailing the list. If that were the case Spinach, you calling my words
> disingenuous would be you dismissing my concerns with invalidation.
>
> -Al
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM, spinach williams
> <spinach.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> it is also disingenuous to announce a range of 50+%-80+% support for each
>> board member when turnout was only 50%. also, when turnout is 50% and
>> someone voices concern about the process of notification and conduct of the
>> vote, that needs to be taken seriously rather than such a large number of
>> absentees written off immediately. also, after quietly rushing a vote
>> through, it's further disingenuous to claim a person who counted the votes
>> is just upset with the final count. worst of all is responding to people
>> voicing their concern with invalidation and simultaneously calling for
>> discussion. let people speak, and let's not pretend a recall has never
>> happened.
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2014 1:38 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Naomi, I wouldn't say your reasons are bullshit, but yeah, if your vote
>>> is important to you then you should have taken it more seriously.
>>>
>>> Kevin, it's disingenuous to claim that the people who didn't vote
>>> automatically don't support the board, just as it would be for me to claim
>>> that all the non-voters would have supported the board members if they had
>>> voted. None of us are mind readers. The way we resolve things are by
>>> discussing them.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say the voting process was a bit more obscure than it should have
>>>> been.
>>>>
>>>> The reason -- the very bullshit reason, I will readily admit, but here
>>>> it goes -- that I didn't end up voting was because:
>>>>
>>>> * I was at a meeting where votes were being taken, and got to talking
>>>> about something or other, and then the person taking votes was
>>>> suddenly not there.
>>>>
>>>> * I thought, "Oh, I still have a week."
>>>>
>>>> * I didn't see anything on the list about voting, for a week (you can
>>>> check the archives, there wasn't anything posted about voting that
>>>> week).  I didn't know whom to contact (this is bullshit, I admit it),
>>>> so I just waited and intended to go to the NB meeting.
>>>>
>>>> * Something came up (literally, I was sick) and I couldn't go to the
>>>> NB meeting.  :p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My lackadaisical attitude towards voting came mostly from the
>>>> historical nature of the board being a symbolic group with no real
>>>> responsibilities or power.  I do not think I am alone in that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IN THE FUTURE, board elections will need to be more in-your-face,
>>>> involving posters and website blink-tags reminding people not just TO
>>>> vote but instructing on HOW to vote.
>>>>
>>>> And I hope no one is going to argue that "it was on the wiki", because
>>>> that is one of the most weedy, un-navigable pieces of information
>>>> architecture I have ever seen.
>>>>
>>>> --Naomi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > That's actually better turnout than at the last couple of elections, I
>>>> > believe.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm hearing different things from different people. I want to address
>>>> > a few
>>>> > things:
>>>> >
>>>> > The polls were open for weeks, so I don't think you can say people
>>>> > weren't
>>>> > given enough time to vote.
>>>> > Kevin himself conducted the election, so I don't think you can say the
>>>> > voting process was illegitimate.
>>>> > Not only did the board members get elected, they got elected with
>>>> > between
>>>> > 53% and 84% of the total votes in a system that doesn't even require a
>>>> > majority to be elected, so I don't think you can say "Noisebridge
>>>> > members do
>>>> > not support the board".
>>>> >
>>>> > But Kevin, you'll always be able to come up with some goal-post moving
>>>> > standard that people fail to live up to. If you say the board doesn't
>>>> > have
>>>> > the support of Noisebridge, not that the alternative has *even less*.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Al
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Kevin <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On March 26, 2014 10:59:17 AM PDT, Jeffrey Carl Faden
>>>> >> <jeffreyatw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > 13? Isn't that close to the amount of members Noisebridge has?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > > We're working on it.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > By the way, that "overwhelming support" came in the form of about
>>>> >> > > 13
>>>> >> > > actual people voting.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > Just some food for thought....
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > --Naomi
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
>>>> >> > > <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > > > I personally envision a transparent process, with time for
>>>> >> > discussion and
>>>> >> > > > space made for dissenting views to be heard and incorporated.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > We sometimes have done this. We call this,
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > Consensus.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > They told us it was radical and we said, we think it is an
>>>> >> > interesting
>>>> >> > > way
>>>> >> > > > to make decisions. Call us radicals then.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > If the board is empowered to do things they need at least reach
>>>> >> > consensus
>>>> >> > > > within themselves. The fact that there is dissent even within
>>>> >> > > > such
>>>> >> > a
>>>> >> > > small
>>>> >> > > > group means that the solution needs some editing.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > R.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> >> > > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > --
>>>> >> > > Naomi Theora Most
>>>> >> > > naomi at nthmost.com
>>>> >> > > +1-415-728-7490
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > skype: nthmost
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > > 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
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's about 50% turnout. Additionally,  the least voted for member
>>>> >> of the
>>>> >> BoD had the support of 7. A far cry from overwhelming support.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> +1 to refactoring the board roster
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>>>
>>>> skype: nthmost
>>>>
>>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list