[Rack] [Noisebridge-discuss] Trimmed off the board list

Kevin bfb at riseup.net
Wed Mar 26 21:26:19 UTC 2014


On March 26, 2014 1:55:53 PM PDT, 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

Anyone interested in investigating the logistics of a recall may contact me off list. 

Also, can we have an admin-oversight list to help organize the effort?



More information about the Rack mailing list