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

Trent Robbins robbintt at gmail.com
Mon Oct 23 05:49:52 UTC 2017


Hi Zach,

I know you have been typing a lot, can you please verify whether the
consensus item text is as follows:

Elevator Repair Fund

*Zach proposes that NB set aside $400 per year for the purpose of elevator
repair costs. Any deductions from this fund can be recorded with receipts
and sent to noisebridge-discuss or the Wiki*



Thanks,
Trent

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:

> John S:
>
> > I am not able to attend Tuesday meetings, as I said, because of a
> recurring
> > commitment.
>
> This is good to know now.  The first time you mentioned this was only
> a few days ago after a consensus was reached at the 3rd NB meeting.
> As the wiki states, you can send a proxy member to block items you
> don't agree with.
>
>
> > 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 great.  You never asked for a "plan" for how to spend the
> money.  I can not make a "plan" for where the money will go for future
> elevator repairs (I cannot predict how and what will break).  You
> asked for what the funds would be used for and I told you about many
> things that currently need repairs.  The gate needs thousands of
> dollars in repairs after being cut open by the fire department.  Now
> that the money is secured and made available by consensus I can look
> into different companies, their rates, and their quotes for doing
> repairs.
>
> >That’s what this
> > discussion was for, which you don’t want to have.
>
> I've been answering your Qs every single day, and have been fully
> engaged in the discussion since day one.  I'm not sure where you get
> the notion that I don't want to discuss things.
>
> > I just want an actual good faith consensus
> > process.
>
> Me too, that is why I followed the NB Consensus guidelines.  That is
> why I spent my time and energy to come to meetings, have real life
> discussions with people, and answer lots of emails and questions here.
> That is why I worked my ass off talking to people on multiple
> occasions and organizing for help many months before even bringing
> this up as a "big-C" Consensus item.  That is why I worked my ass off
> getting to three meetings in a row and answering Qs and talking to
> people in the community regularly.
>
> >you didn’t present the same
> > proposal at each meeting, and didn’t have a clear text of a proposal.
>
> I did.  I posted to the NB Discuss on 10/11:
>
> " I request that we establish an Elevator Repair Fund at Noisebridge.
> This fund could be as modest or ambitious as people like, but I
> believe a minimum of $400 per annual year would do a great deal to
> benefit the space."
>
> At the meeting I learned about the difference between General Fund and
> Equipment Fund, so it was agreed on at the meetings that the elevator
> was a "must need" item and that funds should come from the General
> Fund.
>
> Per answering your questions, I also clarified that the money would be
> used for:
>
> 1) to hire /outside/ professional help with elevator repair (from a
> private company or union that would issue a receipt)
> 2) to purchase parts for the elevator (with receipts)
>
> The proposal is very clear.  I find that I am repeating myself.  What
> is the "clear plan" that you want?  It's cut and dry.  Now that the
> money is available I can lookup companies and look into more parts to
> do repairs.
>
> > As I said, there was already $400 in funds available before the meeting
> > where you claimed consensus
>
> Not true.  At no point did you say "we have $400 available right now
> for elevator repairs and we will always have $400/year available for
> elevator repairs." This consensus item was not brought up just to
> solve the problem now.  It is to have at least some money available,
> consistently, for repairing the elevator at NB.
>
> The fact that you want to use state-required ADA money solely for the
> elevator without discussion about other disability needs at NB (or
> with other disabled people at NB) is problematic.
>
> > I think you’re stuck in an old model of open conflict at meetings
>
> There was zero conflict at meetings.  Only total agreement that the
> Elevator Repair Fund is a good idea.
>
> > and on-discuss to make decisions at Noisebridge.
>
> There wasn't any conflict on NB-Discuss, I was answering your
> questions.  I only said you were being unexcellent when you emailed
> /after/ consensus was reached at 3 meetings:
>
> >I have some qualms about this being passed off as consensus...
> >Whether or not someone is physically present at the meeting is not really
> pertinent.
>
> This is untrue and is an attempt to derail how consensus works at NB.
> That is unexcellent and it bothers me a lot.  People worked very, very
> hard over the years to develop the consensus process we have today.
> That is why there is a clear wiki page describing how it works and why
> we talk about it at the meetings you choose not to attend.
>
> > 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 have already explained that I have disabilities that make using the
> computer hard for me.  That is why I come to meetings and have
> person-to-person interactions with people - assuming the elevator is
> working and I can come into the space.  There should be no
> discrimination against someone for not using an application like
> Slack.  I am part of the community just like everyone else.
>
> > 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
>
> See above.  I have said over and over again in meetings and on
> NB-Discuss that the money should come from the General Fund.  This was
> agreed on at the last 2 meetings. Have you tried talking to other
> people present at the meetings?
>
> See the two items above, again, for where the money should go.  That
> you think this is confusing is not my fault.  I cannot create a
> spending plan when I don't know what will break in the future.  Again,
> this money is to be made available for *future repairs* needed as
> well.
>
> > 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.
>
> Again, I have been super busy repairing the elevator, answering Qs,
> and going to meetings.  I have not had time to call elevator companies
> for quotes.  The elevator breaks often, it needs parts all the time
> and in the future will need more.  We need money put away for that.
> Why is this such a hard concept?
>
> > 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.
>
> That is what I have been doing since JULY.  Sadly, some people did not
> decide to take this problem seriously until I raised a "Big-C" item,
> which is sad.  For those of us with disabilities, the elevator has
> been a major issue for a long time.
>
> I was trapped in the elevator for the 10 year anniversary when I came
> to present for 5mof.  Me and my friend were stuck in there for almost
> 20 minutes.  When I came for Chelsea Manning's talk it was still
> broken, and someone had to carry Liz's scooter up a flight of steps.
> I had to miss this talk because I had to spend over 5 hours doing
> elevator repairs, because after 2 months the elevator was still broken
> and no one was fixing it.  I have been having lots of discussions with
> people for many months.  Only after that failed did I bring this up as
> a "little-C" and "big-C" consensus item.
>
> > Starting a big public email battle
>
> I'm just trying to get funds for the elevator.  I have no interest in
> starting a battle.  I would like access to Noisebridge just like
> anyone else.
>
> > You have not once attempted to reach out to me individually
>
> Fair enough, I will contact you off list.
>
> >I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the
> elevator.
>
> Fantastic.  That makes much of this discussion a moot point then.
>
> -Zach
>
>
>
> On 10/22/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171022/9b75a786/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list