Meeting Notes 2018 04 03
These are the notes from the The XXXth Meeting of Noisebridge.
Date: 4/3/2018
Moderators: Kevin, Ruth
Note-taker: Naomi / @nthmost
- Hot damn, we must be doing something right.
Meeting Summary[edit | edit source]
- Announcements:
- Finances:
- New members:
- New philanthropists: Alchemist
- Consensus Items: $4K for SK Discovery Process (deferred due to lack of informed advocates)
- Discussion Items: What Even Is Consensus, Blocking, and Membership anyway???
Introductions[edit | edit source]
- Noisebridge is like a wiki what Noisebridge is about:
Noisebridge is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that provides a space for creation, collaboration, and learning about technology and creative projects. Noisebridge provides space, power tools, and infrastructure to help the public learn new skills and create cool things. Noisebridge continues to exist through and depends entirely on membership fees and donations. Our code of conduct is 'Be excellent to each other'."
- Scotty - calling in from Shenzhen China. NB is my 2nd home in SF! There a few months a year.
- Patrick - he/him -- infosec and shenanigans. Dropping beats by night. Build and improve NB over the years.
- Augur - she/they -- laser cutter class teacher -- aftereffects and ffmpeg, come talk to me.
- Adrian - he/him -- electronics, mech stuff, been doing nerf blasters for the last few months.
- Alex - -- Gamebridge, sometimes music and art. Simbridge VR NB fundraising
- Pavel - he/him -- here for 2 weeks from europe -- graphic novel with Noisebridge in it! Come talk to me. Warsaw hackerspace, helped them move.
- Chris - -- around the world trip, i'm a hacker I think? used to visit a lot of spaces and do stuff with FabLab. Knows Pavel from Poland.
- Natalie - she/her -- kids projects, run a summer camp and an after-school program. Expanding!
- James - -- theatre performer, AudioChurch. MAPP this Saturday org w/ Ruth.
- Mark - -- observing!!
- Kevin - he or they/them -- working on the NBSP;
- Nicole - she -- also doing the NSBP;
- Nick - -- liking in HERE! now that it's moving i'm full of regret.
- Alchemist or Carl - they/them or he/him -- tonight I'm applying to be a Philanthropist!
- Bernice - she/her or they/them -- grew up in Asia where every pronoun is gender neutral! Working on the NB Gaming Archivist Live Arcade Cabinet project for Maker Faire
- Dustin - -- 2nd time at meeting... work on electromechanical projects
- Roy - they/them -- cryptopals, want to restart cryptoENEMIES group! we have a Slack channel. Working on cryptopals come talk to me. Hopefully thursday around 8 PM, will take the place of math class which kind of died out.
- Frank - -- data communications, learning about blockchain, Eth... Philosophy of the "AI Context" and advanced thought in gender-neutral pronouns
- Ryan - he or "El Jefe" -- philanthropist, i like advising people on really just anything. Yep, anything.
- Ruth - she/her -- new space work, org'ing MAPP
- Nthmost - she/her -- member since 2009! have seen the space through a lot of "times"
- Jade - she/her or they/them or "awesome" --
- Kevin - he/him or they/them -- Neurohacking group on Wednesday nights
- Trent - he/him - arrives late
Short announcements and events[edit | edit source]
- this Saturday: MAPP (Mission Art Performance Project) -- anyone is welcome to help volunteer to be a greeter, setup, teardown -- HUGE community art event. Could def use the help! You can set up your own projects here in the hackitorium. Setup 6pm, event 6:30pm, cleanup 10:30pm. Contact us on #mapp on Slack. "Basically a party!!!" --Ruth
On Mapp... need volunteers to help with general setup, greeting, teardown between 6pm and 11pm. Join slack #mapp channel or email sundquistjames@gmail.com to help out. Even an over of time appreciated to help give tours, greet folks and raise donations. Contact Ruth if you’d like to exhibit a project in the main room. All are welcome!
- AudioChurch Potluck -- people share A/V projects and/or snacks. 2x a month. Next one is Sunday April 15th (tax day!). Every other Sunday after that.
Let's meet for 90 minutes, from 4pm - 5:30pm, to share our instruments, music, audio and video projects! Software, Hardware, and Snacks welcome! Things tend to devolve into a jam fest until around 7pm... Bring a snack item to share and feel free to donate $ to Noisebridge. Details Details are Listed on the Meetup Page: https://www.meetup.com/noisebridge/events/249354629/ And our Noisebridge.net Wiki Channel: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Audio_Church And Facebook event https://www.facebook.com/events/974823419352918/
- 8pm Thursday in Turing -- #cryptopals
- Maker Faire -- NB accepted! We're showing 3 or 4 projects there. SimBridge w/ interactive fundraising activities. See Alex Peake (@alex) about that. Lizzie and Lee bringing modular synths. Kevin's bringing an EEG (Brainduino). Mixing and matching of projects could be interesting.
- Do you know any comic artists who know what NB is and how to represent it? Pavel is looking for them!
- Internet Archive event this Saturday, 2-6pm. JBP Symposium. http://blog.archive.org/2018/03/23/john-perry-barlow-symposium-saturday-april-7/
Safe Space[edit | edit source]
- We don't allow any bullying or harassment
- No discrimination of any kind
- we don't allow people to monopolize others' time
- Anyone can ask another to leave the space
- You can ask others to help you ask someone else to leave.
- If you're not sure about something, ask!
- Many places around the space, SIGNS explaining the policy and how to invoke Ask To Leave. You can post for help anonymously online.
Participation[edit | edit source]
- Participation generally: come and hack on things! ring the bell to come in. 11am to 10pm usually (often later, sometimes earlier, depends on who's here).
- how to get an RFID Key: get 30 day access by being friendly and being excellent and making yourself useful and generally being cool.
- 24hr access is for philanthropists and members.
- there is NB Supporter level of donation on Patreon.
- No donation required for access!!
Philanthropists[edit | edit source]
Carl is up for Philanthropist
Alchemist (Carl): Philanthropy at NB is committing to give NB some money in support of the space b/c you're able to and can, and also agreeing to the principles of the space. NB for me is truly special, i've never found anything like it in Canada, NYC... because of the people who are here! Core believe that this needs to exist and we have a surplus of Excellence.
Carl: Responsibilities -- closing the space. if you let someone in, give tours.
Ryan: but have you taken out the trash?!?!
Carl: Yes, yes I have.
[general murmurs of assent]
[Alchemist / Carl becomes a Philanthropist, yay]
Membership Binder [edit | edit source]
James: it's philanthropy and being a part of this community but also wanting to have blocking rights when we have a Consensus item. in general everyone is equally empowered to take action. Not about being a part of a special club, but rather a special community.
Alex: Members are the sponsors of future Philanthropists and Members and can block other Members from being approved. Up to the Members to get to know those people and make sure they will be good for the future of the space. The more we know people who want to join the better we are at growing the community.
Financial Report[edit | edit source]
- Funds in bank: $90,352.59 (3/4s of which is general funds = $67k). We are now at $9k/month at the past week's rate of cash going into the cash boxes!!!! WTaF
- Noisetor (See the bulletpoints at the bottom of http://noisetor.net/finances/#summary): we dunno!
- The latest financial reports from the treasurer are available at https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Finances
Consensus[edit | edit source]
Augur: 2 kinds of consensus, little-c -- "I want to play some music, is everyone cool with that?" big-C consensus means changing what it means to be Noisebridge. 2 week process at meetings -- discussion. If no one blocks it passes.
Nthmost: Important to point out, it's not just about 2 weeks of process. Most of the actual Consensus-building happens prior to it ever coming to a meeting. Consensus proposals that show up first at meetings are usually met with surprise and concern. Similarly, blocks shouldn't be a surprise at the meeting. And also, stuff should just pass simply because there were 2 weeks without a block.
Scotty: about blocking.... I see blocking as a tool to say "hey i think the process has gone off the rails", let's take a step back and reconsider. It doesn't need to necessarily be about one person's concerns but about recommending more community consideration. We used to use the concept of blocking only rhetorically -- i.e. if you can live with the decision maybe it's ok to take the risk. Lately it looks like people are thinking they might possibly ignore the block and then let the person leave the community and that's not nec a healthy way to see it.
Proposals from last week [edit | edit source]
SK Discovery Process
Recap from last week:
- Lady Red proposes funding the SK discovery process.
- Kevin will bullet point goals of discovery.
Jade: most discussion happened in the NBSP meeting Nthmost: Please, let's take better notes guys... Kevin: do we feel we need to move forward on this urgently? [Ryan finds notes from NSBP;]
Ryan- here is link to notes on SK durring last weeks meeting https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/New_space_meeting_2018_03_27
Scotty: have we talked to any prior clients of SK? [nope no and not at all, say many people] Yeah just seems like a good data Q. Mark: could we perhaps unify our separate fundraising efforts under SK? I'm trying to reach out to outside groups for cross-promotion, maybe they could help get us more efficient? Adrian: feel like $4k is a lot of money, we should do due diligence, etc. Talking to previous clients sounds like a good idea. NB is doing a good job with small-money donations, we could use help w/ grants + big-money Jarrod: we don't have advocates for this proposal here. Doesn't seem like discussion can really happen. Pavel: if NB makes a decision by consensus and deides to pay that person, who owns the communication? single person? Kevin: i think 2-3 people are involved at the moment. We're adding contact info and organization details on a wiki page, but right now it's private and hard to get.
[general assent that it's hard to talk about this to make an informed decision with information]
Ruth: So if anybody here has time to do the due-diligence on SK...!?
Proposals for next week [edit | edit source]
SK Discovery Process
Discussion[edit | edit source]
Discussion Items[edit | edit source]
[Kevin fields a whole lot of topics. Nthmost struggles to keep up with the effort to reorder them, gets frustrated and grumpy.]
Blocking in Consensus and Cultural Definition Thereof
Continue the Discussion From Last Week about Lizzie's Membership
How We Value Community Members Abroad
Gender Pronouns
Talks Pavel Can Give
Taking out the Trash and Getting more people to do it
Bernice would like to make some livestreaming classes, but wants to discuss its privacy issues.
How do we make it known that NB is more inclusive than people think it is?
Blocking in Consensus and Cultural Definition Thereof[edit | edit source]
Scotty: we used to talk about blocking in particular way in the past. Looked through the meeting notes. In the past, we Should block only when you have something you feel so strongly about that you'd be willing to leave NB if it goes forward. Lately it seems people are interpreting that to mean that they should just continue on and force that person to leave, essentially. Concerned b/c the power of the block is that everybody respects that block even if they vehemently disagree. That's the power of the block -- to stop the conversation in a somewhat absolute way. Benefit is it prevents A vs B deicisons. Sometimes in contentious decisions A and B aren't actually good options, and the block ensures we do continue to find those C, D, E, etc options we wouldn't ordinarily find.
So if we get to a place where people feel they can just steamroll blocks, we're essentially just going back to a voting model where it's majority wins. As long as you are willing to risk losing people you don't agree with. That seems like a major shift in how we do Consensus and blocking. How do other people feel -- is what I am observing real?
Jarrod: are there examples of this being said? i'm not aware of this.
Scotty: long discussion in #general where this is discussed at length. Mtgs I attended this past fall indicate people think this way.
Augur: wasn't there a thing where we closed the space despite lack of Consensus?
Kevin: yeah maybe we're dealing with the fallout of that right now. Agree w/ Scotty that this is not a healthy way to practice Consensus.
Nthmost: so, yeah, there's context for the Reboot. We tried to close the space the previous summer and we were blocked; the way we went about building "consensus" lowercase-c was in the context of a community in which many people would block the closing of the space b/c they were living in it (kitchen, sleeping here overnight). Endless meetings that achieved no practical outcomes were literally threatening the survival of the space.
Jarrod: i saw it as a do-ocratic check on the broken Consensus process.
Scotty: [I missed this, sorry -nm]
Jarrod: we never got to the point where we were getting to Consensus to close the space.
Kevin: I had a principled objection to closing the space w/o Consensus and I stopped coming to the space b/c I felt excluded. Maybe the ends justify the means? Hmm.
Patrick: Started participating in NB around Reboot time. Closing of the space was sort of a subcomponent of undertaking the fundraising and getting the violations taken care of.
Adrian: I thought Consensus could literally kick out a Member that was trying block. So i think using this rhetorical device can make things confusing.
Jarrod: Scotty is there something you'd like to see as the result from this discussion? say things differently?
Scotty: We should build lowercase c consensus about how we do view a block. People seem to have different viewpoints on this. Are there times we can "ignore" a block? Do people see paths to overriding blocks? that seems like serious change to me.
Jarrod: I think everyone at NB will have a slightly different view of how NB sees Consensus, blocking, Membership, etc. Every proposal is different, consensus is built differently per discussion. I imagine blocking may take a different turn per discussion.
Ruth: After hearing Scotty speak, having this Consensus process along those lines seems to make NB more creative in problem-solving.
Ryan: with a block, how to let people know beforehand...? supposed to be that between meetings people talk through it, but are there cases where people show up and block at meetings w/o knowing what's going on? Since a block holds a lot of power
Nthmost: Consensus building requires discussion -- 2 pts
Nick: Sounds like what's needed is a more formal process for when blocks are overridden...
Nthmost: we don't override blocks.
Nick: but didn't we recently?
Nthmost: Well let's talk about that.
Patrick: nobody can be held accountable for words never spoken. But if words are spoken with intent to reach the community that's a different situation. We avoid extra processes and bureaucratic stuff b/c rules lawyers are soooo annoying.
James: there were instances in the past where people gave blocks but just out of a sense of entropy, or exhausted with the conversation, not because they were trying to help the community.
Trent: i think some of the confusion arises from convos on Slack. Talked to LadyRed about a hypothetical -- what if /everyone/ could block?
Scotty: I understood these were hypothetical convos, but I had other discussions leading me to believe others think of this in a literal sense.
Roy: Concerned about what Patrick said about simply talking to people being sufficient for blocking. I think bringing it directly to a meeting is important. If no one is proxying for them, then I don't think it's reasonable for a meeting to assume the block has happened.
Patrick: If someone says they have an intention and make efforts to commnunicate it... if there's confusion and it doesn't happen, i think it's different than someone just not making efforts to make the block known.
Augur: what is the number of people at which the intention to block becomes real? 2, 3, 4 people?
Kevin: we're trying to keep this hypothetical because it's an important core principle discussion. Agree that communication about blocks need to for sure come to the meeting.
Ryan: is there anything in place to instead of doing a block, do something where we postpone the Consensus to the next meeting, b/c you don't want to block it but don't know enough about it.
Trent: response to Ryan: well first of all, you should try to find a compromise (rather than just putting the complete brakes on it). So to say "i block" and have no plan is not OK. But that's not entirely true... there are 2 different types of consensus we need to mention here. Consensus proposals, and Membership consensus. Big difference. If you block a consensus _item_ you must be willing to come to the meeting with plans, compromises, etc. Your responsibility to come up wtih an alternate consensus. Membership consensus is different. There is no obligation to come to the table (mediate), identify yourself, or provide a way forwards. We need to keep talking about all this.
Alchemist: Building on that -- game theory, seems like there's no cost to block. So what Trent is saying sounds good.
Lizzie: there's lack of clarity around Member blocking and whether anonymous blocks need to come to the meeting, etc.
Jarrod: Feel like we're trying to solve an edge case with general processes and I don't think that's going to make progress on the edge case.
Roy: responding to the "cost to block" point -- i see the cost as just showing up, or getting someone to show up. You have to either be physically present or having someone to proxy for you at the meeting.
Kevin NBSP: what's the original issue we're referring to, Lizzie's Membership or something?
Kevin: Yeah, anonymous Membership block -- that we want to abolish the idea of writing "block" on someone's sheet, but also what's the validity of anonymous blocking. And "must we honor blocks?" -- Scotty is concerned that we don't have to honor blocks and simply push someone out instead.
Scotty: to be clear I'm not supporting the idea of pushing someone out as a way to ignore a block.
Patrick: Let's be more abstract, talk about principles (next discussion).
James: Membership application summary... let's say you get anon blocked. You're Done. It is blocked. Membership Consensus means there's no need for blocker to come to the table.
Jarrod: the check on this process is that the ppl who can do this are Members who've been vetted and understand the process of Consensus. we can trust that ppl who are Members of NB have the blessing of the rest of the Memebrship that they will not abuse or game the system because they love NB.
Alchemist: ok that makes sense.
Jade: yes Membership consensus issues are different. [by contrast] Blocking Consensus items is the opening of a discussion, not the end of one. (paraphrase: To block is to say, "I don't agree with this consensus item as is. I want to see these changes ..." *proposes updated consensus item* To block isn't to say, "I expect to withdraw from the community. Bye.")
Ryan: worried -- there's nowhere it says how long you can wait to reapply. I have not applied in the 3 years i've been here b/c I'm worried someone will block me b/c i haven't been useful to this space. Feel like it would hurt my self-esteem to find out i was blocked.
Natalie: to me the anon blocking is about safety. Important. Plenty of reasons to keep someone from knowing you personally blocked them. This is happening to me in another commnuity - i am afraid of a particular person that i am blocking.
Nthmost: (respond to Ryan) process of getting Sponsors helps with building your case to be a Member. (we haven't spent enough time in meetings talking about M, C, etc)
Lizzie: 2 things, is it correct to understand anon block as a block proxy where the person is not telling ppl involved who you are? to Naomi: I think 70-80% of the meetings we have talked about Membership consistently.
Scotty: Obligations and expectations around Membership blocks -- i agree strongly with James' comments (no obligations, no reasons required). We should spend time & effort trying to reach out to people that are blocked ahead of time, and talk through the concerns people have. But... those conversations are really hard. Lots of emotional energy. Pretty high likelihood they go poorly and we've lost ppl because of that. Practical reluctance to do this process due to lack of spoons. Screwing up not letting the person know in a timely manner screws things up far worse than otherwise, and really messes up NB as a whole.
Alchemist: further on there's a concept of diversity in the space. Understand Membership, perpetuates identity in the space, also creates discrimination mechanism. Can be a self-perpetuating problem. Something about game theory. How this is handled in other orgs is not revealing the person, but delivering a logical explanation for the issue.
Kevin: Sort of a problem in the nomenclature in Phil / Membership. (recounts differences & how much is the same) Maybe restructuring these levels would be a good idea?
Roy: Sponsorship is not the only privilege for Members -- also giving tokens, getting the list of Members, and maybe a few other things.
Trent: There is a high implied social value to being a Member of NB in terms of the implicit trust the community has in you. Important to talk about this implied social value and how people value it.
Jarrod: However things go, at the end of the day, NB's processes are hurting ppl right now and we will owe many apologies.
James: I understand ppl feel a lot of importance in being a Member of NB. The real power of NB i see is in do-ocratic action. Being part of the club doesn't give you privileges you need to be successful at NB. I respect others' opinions but strongly feel you are all capable of being successful at NB w/o seeking everyone's approval.
Natalie: I only hear Members say that.
James: I'm not a Member. I rescinded pre-Reboot b/c i saw Consensus as a broken system (though things seem a lot better now), and have always believed in doocracy.
Ryan: I have a lot of friends i want to bring here who can only come at weird hours. And I want them to get involved and they might need a axcess token to get involved and possibly become a philanthopist, but do not want to always ask one of my member friends to give them one,unless they know that person as well.
Trent: I wrote a proposal allowing philanthropists to renew tokens - maybe we can talk later and you could make a proposal that philanthropists can grant tokens.
Roy: Being a member can be important to bringing more people into Noisebridge; see tokens and sponsorship.
Alchemist: important discovery that separated concerns of acceptance from concerns of process.
Adrian: to concur w/ a previous statement by Alchemist, i think the commnunity owes the reason to blocked person. Only reason not to would be if the reason revealed the anon blocker.
Natalie: Actually the reasons often reveal the person no matter how you phrase the reason...
Scotty: to respond to the community owing a reason: pretty much everyone who applies is already a known person when they apply for Membership. Disagree that we formalize stating a reason, but i think there's a goodwill desire, even when there are strong concerns, usually alongside that there is a desire to have that person continue to participate. Best way to do that when someone is being blocked is to have that conversation. For reasons Natalie stated, might not be wise to formalize that process.
Continue the Discussion From Last Week about Lizzie's Membership block issue[edit | edit source]
Roy: 2 weeks ago, Lizzie's membership app was in its 4th week. Nothing had been communicated block wise at that point. Went through the usual Membership process, etc. Came up with no objections and declared her a Member. On a secret Slack channel called #miniex (Ministry of Excellence) several blocks had been raised that hadn't been communicated to anyone in the last four meetings. So... what does that count as? Is that a proxy block? a block at all? Lots of hurt feelings on all sides. I felt like it was disrespecting process to dispute the results of that process. I have a lot of feelings about that process and the ministry of excellent issues.
Jade: Clarify -- i think Lizzie should be recognized as a Member right now. Process happened and Consensus was achieved. 3-4 Members were there. A block didn't bubble up to anyone at the meetings. The block didn't make it to the proper channels.
Jarrod: This block was very surprising considering how positive the interview was. No way of knowing.
Nthmost: One of the subtexts of this issue to me has to do with honoring process and taking the results of process at face value instead of the principles behind the process. I don't feel the principles behind the process are being honored in the results.
Pavel: I just heard an argument for honoring the block. Has the person with the block communicated their reasons?
Naomi: I talked to mitch verifying I can share this information. He needs people to be Members who he is able to have a reasonable discussion with. And he feels he cannot have a reasonable discussion due to the last year of feeling systematically disrespected by lizzie.
Pavel: Why did this person not communicate this in a meeting or online?
Naomi: I know why. Because he did not feel physically comfortable with talking with Lizzie in the space or on Slack.
James: setting current stuff aside, i see Consensus items moving through not because we all agree but because no one voices a block. We could have passed the $4k consensus earlier but we chose to wait another week. This is a problem with this system. Maybe we got lucky that it hasn't happened too often.
Alchemist: So, does this individual have credible reasons and evidence for their block?
Jade: for Membership consensus, you don't need to have "credible reasons", that's just how it's been.
Crow: if you don't have a certain set of tools for framework how can there be a coherent system? Client/server protocol, e.g. You might create more discrimination. Certain tools as a Member doesn't make sense.
Lizzie: i've just received more info than i had about this block. Don't think i can discuss it b/c of ongoing mediation. I want mediation to go well. IN terms of Spirit versus Letter of the Law, I see Consensus happening at the meetings as an important part of the spirit of the law.
Jarrod: Do you think we should continue this here, or...?
Lizzie: yes, for sure.
Crow: Maybe you misunderstood... i meant a certain set of tools we all can use... [Lizzie mentions about getting on stack]
Scotty: I've spoken w/ Lizzie 1-1... i want to personally apologize for how this has played out. Worst way for this to go, really unfair to Lizzie. Acknowledge my role in the issue (could have communicated the block). But I want to clarify that there was indeed effort to communicate this block. Mitch didn't further seek people to proxy on his behalf because he felt he had people covering it. The rest of us felt it was covered and didn't do it. Huge fuckup and very broken process. Yes we need to bring blocks into meetings. important part of the process. There was the intention to have it happen and it didn't happen.
Patrick: As has happened before and will happen again, we have discovered a new anti-pattern!!! We shall enter this into the annals of hackerspaces.org -- I want to emphasize that when we've discovered a big communal fuckup in the past, one thing that's made me proud to be at NB ist hat people all lean into the process of preventing it from happening again. And why NB has lasted so long. Important spirit to bring to the specific.
Pavel: the fact that you are able to talk about such hard problems is HUGE. Exact same problem destroyed our hackerspace last year. We went from 40 Members down to 3! I admire you!
Alex: (1) in a better system where someone wanted to make sure their block went through (safely) what should the mechanism be? can it be an automated system? how should ppl register a block in the future? (2) in the event something like this goes through & there's a dispute about whether it takes effect Spirit vs Letter of the Law, is there a process we can follow here?
Lizzie: one mechanism could be that Sponsors are by default volunteering to relay that information for you.
Patrick: mea culpa -- i didn't have the spoons for this issue. I sponsored you and this was an accident. Unfortunate combination of probabilities. We didn't model for this. That's why we're having this discussion.
Ryan: These blocks can happen anonymously... when ppl become Members and they have the ability to block Philanthropists and Members... we're trying to say Members don't have a lot of power but this is a lot of power. How do we prevent it happening where if one person becomes a Member they block the next person from being a Member
Nthmost: We achieve this by paying a lot of attention to the Spirit of the Law and not just adhering to the results simply by virtue of having done the Letter of the Law process.
Alchemist: we're a 1-of-a-kind org here, unique problems and challenges. I work with engineering teams. humans by default go into their feelings. we need to catch ourselves and adhere to logic.
Jarrod: Members have to follow Be Excellent. We have de-Membered people in the past. important to remain Excellent.
Alex: what can we change in the future? Will we accept that this happens sometimes? When I was in C-base, they take your credit card and then you're a member provisionally for a few months until some full member blocks you. So they recognize Membership can be granted problematically in their process.
Scotty: Interesting, potentially something we can consider. I think we made a misstep -- someone in #miniex said they'd mark on Lizzie's app that they were being blocked (probably an anti-pattern). We should really separate "what should we do about this right now" and "how do we prevent this from happening in the future". Let's not conflate those.
Adrian: how are Members dis-Membered?
Kevin: several processes, Consensus and the Board
Lizzie: You can ask someone to leave and not come back.
Nthmost: i wouldn't consider that a complete process...
[Kevin tries to artfully end for tonight, hedges on idea of ever reaching a conclusion]
James: what's the status of Lizzie's Membership?
Kevin: Ongoing mediation.
Pavel's Talks He Can Give[edit | edit source]
Pavel: I'm here just for 2 weeks! Fly out next Saturday. I have knowledge! Proposing 3 talks:
* I work in Warsaw hackerspace as board member. quit my job to find a new space, renovate, etc. I've seen what happens socially, complete change of culture. I want to share what i've learned!
* Graphic Novel: do you have ideas? your own story? know a comic artist? come talk to me.
* Hear some stories from Kenya, Burkina Faso, Colombia -- i will share with you. LA is talking about municipal broadband, and people in South Africa have created really good usage patterns for free broadband.
[high interest for all of the talks]
EMAIL Pavel:
Alex: is MAPP a suitable venue? Ruth: could be! Graphic novel for sure James: I'll help you get hooked up. Ryan: SF is also doing whole-city broadband there would be a lot of intrest....... Augur: I know lots of things too. let's take this offline.
Gender Pronouns[edit | edit source]
Roy: glad people are doing this, but not everyone is comfortable with this introduction process. We seem to be forcing people to do this, and that's not a good place to be.
Lizzie: good to think about, but i still think the default can be giving pronouns. Frustrating thing: people sometimes make fun of the idea and distance themselves from it. Please don't, it's disrespectful to people who are trying to normalize this practice.
Augur: for example "I use the obvious pronouns."
Kevin: i think the practice is awesome, but we should make it an offer and not a demand. Glad it's getting ingrained as a practice over time.
Patrick: What's the best language to use to make it feel less compulsory? Change the meeting template?
Ryan: I don't like pronouns b/c there isn't one that expresses me... i have a gender statement like 2 sentences long. I don't care about gender stuff in terms of identity. I'm mah own thang. But i want to be an ally to those to whom it really matters, so i will say a pronoun for the moment that works rather than something that encompasses all of who I am. I don't say "El Jefe" as a joke.
Lizzie: the person who had this concern isn't here right now, but i'll follow up with that person. But let's try to have a short statement clarifying what we're going for with the gender pronouns at the top of the meeting template, and maybe I'll take a stab at that language.
Pavel: last year. they as gender pronoun, "they" was declared word of the year. Why not default to they/them?
Bernice: When people have difficulty with that pronoun b/c it's plural, i say it's like we're old style gangsters
Nthmost: if we can't laugh at ourselves we're doing something wrong.
James: as I look at the meeting notes as we go along, looking at list of attendees this seems useful...
Lizzie: I don't think ppl are going to default to "they"...
James: we should be sensitive to ppl who want to use certain pronouns. Deliberate disrespect is a violation
Lizzie: another bad pattern is referring to everyone who looks non-gender-conforming as "they".
Alchemist: I'm in a community house with 14 other people, pretty gender diverse. Referring to each other by commnunity house nickname keeps our individual genders out of it.
Augur: Super cool for cis people to offer their pronouns. Normalizes it.
Kevin: this helps us get out of the culture of making assumptions. And if we explicitly do not want to offer, that's okay too. Let's stay curious about each other and share what/when we feel comfortable with.
Discussion Topics moved to next week[edit | edit source]
How We Value Community Members Abroad
Taking out the Trash and Getting more people to do it
Bernice would like to make some livestreaming classes, but wants to discuss its privacy issues.
How do we make it known that NB is more inclusive than people think it is?
End of Meeting[edit | edit source]
IT'S OVERRRR!
[several people discuss garbage and maybe even take out the trash?]