[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Meeting 10/17/2017

John Shutt john.d.shutt at gmail.com
Sun Oct 22 18:42:08 UTC 2017


Zach,

I am not able to attend Tuesday meetings, as I said, because of a recurring commitment.

I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the elevator. I would be willing to spend more than that if there’s a need. You haven’t come up with any plan for how to spend the money. That’s what this discussion was for, which you don’t want to have.

What I’m not willing to do is acknowledge that you sought consensus in good faith. There was ongoing discussion and debate. There was no specific written consensus proposal. My issue is with you claiming consensus you know you don’t actually have.

Misusing funds? Give me a break. I just want an actual good faith consensus process. Even assuming a bad faith process based entirely on Tuesday meetings that not everyone can attend is valid, you didn’t present the same proposal at each meeting, and didn’t have a clear text of a proposal. I am not the only person confused about your proposal, which originally called for people being paid for working on the elevator, or unhappy with the way you’re going about seeking consensus through conflict instead of discussion.

As I said, there was already $400 in funds available before the meeting where you claimed consensus. There is $720 more on the way, which can be matched by $720 from the equipment fund, which means $1,840 in initial funds available, against your original request of $400. That’s the magic of consensus, discussion, and community engagement, as opposed to conflict, stubbornness, and bad faith.

I think you’re stuck in an old model of open conflict at meetings and on -discuss to make decisions at Noisebridge. I think a big part of the communication issue is you refusing to use Slack, which has smoothed over so much discussion over the past two years.

I think that your decision to have open conflict instead of good faith effort to talk to people and make a plan of action is unexcellent.

You have not once attempted to reach out to me individually before shouting “unexcellent” on a list with hundreds of people. You have not put together any kind of spending plan. You haven’t clarified in any written proposal where funds would come from. The only text presented, which is in the form of a meeting summary, is vague and confusing. You don’t want to discuss where money should come from. I understand that. But that’s what consensus means. Discussing where the money comes from and how to get it opens up new opportunities.

And this is all a moot point because the only actual spending proposal you’ve made is for parts that I already purchased and picked up at the PO box the day they arrived to deliver to the space. You have not made any other specific requests for funds.

If your goal is keeping the elevator in good repair, lots of discussion and community excitement and talk about fundraising is the way to do that. Starting a big public email battle and claiming consensus at a meeting about your specific ideas about money allocation (not actually written down in any proposal) when you know there is an ongoing discussion about how to do this is bad faith and counterproductive.

John

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> John S. are you unwilling to use $400/year from the General Fund for
> elevator repairs?  Again, the Noisebridge Consensus Wiki states:
> 
> "If a member does not attend a meeting, they are asserting that they
> are comfortable with the decisions of those who do choose to attend,
> whether or not they agree. "
> 
> from: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
> 
> Refusing to acknowledge proper consensus and trying to block after 3
> consecutive meetings which you did not attend is unexcellent behavior.
> 
> If you refuse to provide this money for elevator repairs then you
> would be mishandling Noisebridge funds and abusing your privileged
> role as Treasurer of Noisebridge.
> 
> The $200 that DBI is requiring for ADA access /does not/ need to be
> spent on the elevator.  There are other ADA issues at Noisebridge that
> could use this money.  For starters, you can use it to reimburse Kevin
> P. for the caution tape he purchased on Amazon to better mark ADA
> access in the space.  I would also like to use it to purchase some
> quality ADA signage for the space and possibly do something about the
> heavy glass doors always blocking up the entry way.
> 
> Here is an example of a good ADA sign with braille:
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/ADA-Sign-Wheelchair-Accessible-Tactile-Symbol-Braille-Plastic-6x9-Blue-White-/251892778533?epid=1800082539&hash=item3aa5fac625:g:fdIAAOSww5NZA8IK
> 
> It would also be nice to use this money to add braille to key places
> in the space for those with vision impairments.
> 
> Money has not been available for elevator repairs, thus the consensus
> proposal. I will make a separate reply to that later.
> 
> Also please note, I have had surgery on my hands previously and typing
> on these emails on the NB-Discuss is taxing me and is painful.  John
> S, would you be open to coming to the NB meeting this Tuesday to
> discuss these issues in more detail?
> 
> -Zach
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10/20/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Liz,
>> 
>> I think the initial thing was that the landlord had called for a repair
>> after someone being 86’d broke the elevator. That makes sense, since the
>> elevator is part of the building and not a part of Noisebridge. It’s their
>> legal responsibility, but it’s not clear if we have anything in our lease to
>> force them to keep it in good repair. So it’s not clear Noisebridge has paid
>> for elevator repairs in the past or just notified the landlord, though I’m
>> curious about that.
>> 
>> Then things dragged out for over a month as the landlord claimed that
>> licensed elevator repair people were booked solid. Then they came and said
>> they did a repair, but there were still issues with it. So Zach and a few
>> other community members did DIY repairs that seem to have it working, though
>> people are advised to avoid using it unless they need to.
>> 
>> I don’t think money is the issue right now since there is money set aside
>> for repairs and more on the way, and the first requested parts ordered and
>> delivered. I’m waiting for word of additional spending we should make, but
>> haven’t gotten anything specific. The issue of whether or not Noisebridge
>> should take on some of the landlord’s responsibility to repair the elevator
>> was do-ocratically resolved.
>> 
>> Money is now available in the low hundreds, and soon low thousands, for
>> parts and professional maintenance. If expected costs expand to mid
>> thousands or high thousands, I think we should figure out exact numbers so
>> we can approach the landlord and say we’ll take on your responsibility here
>> but need to work out a deal with you to reduce rent. Since no one has a
>> specific ask above $40 so far, and those parts have already been ordered and
>> are in the space, I don’t think we’re practically constrained by the money
>> available.
>> 
>> Best,
>> John
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 20, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Liz Henry <lizhenry at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The elevator seems to have been in bad repair for some time.  I didn't
>>> realize there was any particular limit on how much money we spend on
>>> elevator repair.
>>> 
>>> Are people not calling elevator repair services because of money concerns?
>>> The last I heard from Mitch and others about this, we have plenty of
>>> money.
>>> 
>>> Fixing the elevator shouldn't be an optional part of running Noisebridge.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What's the deal here?  Who calls for a repair service, or decides not to,
>>> these days?
>>> 
>>> I've been going around for years talking about how NB and other bay area
>>> hackerspaces are great about accessibility -- when we first moved spaces,
>>> I asked for wheelchair access and really appreciated that people took that
>>> seriously.   It has meant that I can recommend the space to others as well
>>> as having access myself.   Hope that can continue.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Liz
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:25 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> The original consensus proposal doesn’t mention the general fund at all,
>>>> so in trying to understand how to actually allocate money, here’s my
>>>> interpretation:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. $200 in state mandated spending has already been allocated to the
>>>> Elevator Repair Fund.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. $720 is inbound to the Elevator Repair Fund. This will mean $920 is
>>>> allocated specifically to elevator repair.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Matching grants from the Equipment Fund count towards Noisebridge’s
>>>> yearly spending on elevator repair.
>>>> 
>>>> 4. If the Elevator Repair Fund and/or Equipment Fund are exhausted to the
>>>> point that they can’t cover the mandated $400 of elevator repair spending
>>>> per year, consensus is that the money should be made available from the
>>>> general fund at that point.
>>>> 
>>>> This level of detail matters since our spending and bookkeeping is more
>>>> complicated than in the past. We have several distinct funds and need to
>>>> account for them separately.
>>>> 
>>>> Details and running totals can be found at
>>>> https://noisebridge.net/finances
>>>> 
>>>> If my interpretation of how to account for the elevator repair fund seems
>>>> off to anyone, let’s talk about it and figure it out.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 2:04 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am only aware of the 2017-10-10 meeting notes writeup-
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_10#Elevator_Repair_Fund
>>>>> 
>>>>> Others may be aware of another version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can someone link to the actual text of the consensus proposal?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 1:32 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Greetings, NB-
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A meeting has occurred.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Most notable, Zach's consensus item proposal from last week, of
>>>>>>> creating a set-aside for elevator repair from the general fund, was
>>>>>>> read again and has gone into effect without objection.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meeting Summary-
>>>>>>>  *   Announcements: 2017-10-30: Google "Playcrafting" game dev expo;
>>>>>>> ADA compliance floor markings added; City College is adding maker
>>>>>>> spaces
>>>>>>>  *   Finances: we have 9 months rent in the bank
>>>>>>>  *   New members: open apps: Nicole (3rd week), Merlin (4th week;
>>>>>>> deferred: not present)
>>>>>>>  *   New philanthropists: open apps: Kelly A (1st week)
>>>>>>>  *   Consensus Items: Zach's proposal to allocate general funds for
>>>>>>> elevator repair was consensed ($400 to start)
>>>>>>>  *   Discussion Items: (none)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_17
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Kevin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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