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

Revolt revoltrightnow at gmail.com
Mon Oct 23 05:52:41 UTC 2017


The consensus item agreed upon at the meetings can be found here:
https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Items_History

On 10/22/17, Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list