Meeting Notes 2020 06 30

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

These are the notes from the The ###th Meeting of Noisebridge.

  • Date: 06-30-2020
  • Note-taker: Tiffany
  • Pre-Meeting Moderator: Pyconaut
  • Moderators: Pyconaut
  • Stack: Ⅹ

Meeting Summary[edit]

At least 9 of still attending participants supports working further on Consensus for Accessability

Summary of items for Accessibility Consensus (BLOCKED as written) for revision

  • Consensus Item 1 -...for Noisebridge General Meetings
  • Consensus Item 2 - ...video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge classes
   Relay- add privacy concerns, as well as create guidelines on how to have events be accessable
  • Consensus Item 3 - ...information and statement on the main website
  • Consensus Item 4 - ...information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space

X: (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Proposed edit to include "We noisebridge are committed to making activities accessible to as many people as possible."


TLDR what happened at the meeting:

  • Announcements: Othermill updates, Circuit Hacking Monday, building access, Safe Space scheduling
  • Finances: Funds in bank (6/30/2020)
    • ₿/$: 302,346.34 total
    • $ 239,667.90 cash
    • ₿ 62,678.44 crypto
    • 20.73% crypto / cash
  • New philanthropists: none
  • New members: Ⅹ (week 2, of 2-6'ish)
  • Consensus Items: 4 related to ADA
  • Discussion Items: guilds

Pre-Meeting[edit]

Excellence[edit]

Our One Rule is to Be Excellent to Each Other.

Participation[edit]

Everyone at Noisebridge is a participant at Noisebridge.

Dan: You want to be bringing your best, and any opportunity for excellence... Have fun and safety first.

Pyconaut: Participation can be in many forms. You need to figure how best you feel you can participate at Noisebridge. Not everyone participates in the same way. Some people like helping others, some people like being left to themselves. There's nothing wrong with people participating in different ways. You just need to be bringing your best, like Dan said, and being excellent to others.

You can also participate digitally through our different online systems- noisebridge slack noisebridge discuss https://discuss.noisebridge.info/ noisebridge wiki https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/ noisebridge meetup https://www.meetup.com/noisebridge/


Philanthropist definition[edit]

A Philanthropist at Noisebridge has earned enough trust from the community to open and close the space.

(What does that mean? What do we expect from Philanthropists? How do you become one? etc)

X: Philanthropy is a commitment to help NB financially, and in return have 24hr access (except right now during the moving process). They have gotten to know others, are sponsored by Members, and have familiarity with the community.

Pyconaut: To become a Philanthropist, you have to be sponsored by a big-M Member. You have to come to a Tuesday meeting, where you will be grilled by the community. You'll be given a tour of the space, and you should be able to give tours to newcomers. You can talk to the treasurer about your dues ($40-$80+, depending on your situation).


Membership Definition[edit]

Membership in Noisebridge entails community Trust in Consensus.

(What does that mean? What do we expect from Members? How do you become a Member? etc)

Big M Members are different from just being a member of the community, this is the highest trust level of the noisebridge community, it means that everyone in the community trusts that you would make good decisions about how noisebridge can move forward. This is an annoying bureocratic level of trust, as the only theoretical benefit is that you get to block big C concensus items, and vote on who we place on our board. To become one, you need to go through a four week process, where you fill out a membership form sponsored by two big M members. You bring it to a tuesday meeting where it is submitted, your membership will be discussed at that meeting, then at the next tuesday meeting your membership is discussed again and if it gets to concensus, you will be asked to leave the room while the members present decide if they want to block you or not, if no Member blocks your membership application you become a Member. For the next two weeks any big M member can retroactivly block your membership for any reason. If you get blocked figure out why, fix the issue and then reapply at a later time.

Pyconaut: Big M Members are an important part of the NB system, but they are also not omnipotent beings in the community. They care about NB and about the community being the best it possibly can.

X: This was an open question I had from last week: how does this apply in the current circumstances? Maybe we can discuss this later in the meeting. I would also propose an additional benefit of big M Members: being able to open and stay in the space alone. I'm interested in getting feedback on this idea.

Pyconaut: I think that would be blocked. There has to be at least one Philanthropist in the space. That proposal would break the way NB works right now.

X: I'm saying it's a best practice, not a Consensus item. It's in part because of the current circumstances we're in. I'm not comfortable coming to the space alone, and always come with a buddy. If anything were to happen during the moving, it would be unsafe to be alone. So I'd like to bring this up. This could apply to Philanthropists and Members. Just putting a pin in this for future conversation.

Pyconaut: We would only be open like 4 hours a day if we required to have at least one Member in the space.

X: We have to be taking a safety-first mindset right now. I yield my time now.


Consensus[edit]

Consensus is how the Noisebridge Membership may change how Noisebridge works.


Main Meeting[edit]

Introductions[edit]

Pyconaut-he him- Doing work on the AAron Swartz Day Hackathon, and doing stuff in VR.(Request to identify as not a robot, nothing heard)

Zach- doing cool circuits, and fixing our othermill been a member for 5 years

Tyler - he/him - makes internet things

relay: he/him works on random FOSS stuff.

Rikke - she/her ADA Guild n00b

Evil Dan - been Noisebridging for 7 years, weekly, sometimes twice a week

Ⅹ - space hacker (2nd week Membership applicant)

James - been doing some work on Discuss (which will be updated tomorrow)

Short announcements and events[edit]

60-second description per item in bulletpoint.

Zach: I finished the hardware class I was teaching. One of the students is starting their own class on Sundays (6:15pm). If anyone has access to the Meetup group so I can advertise that, just ping me privately.

Also, I just ordered all the parts for the Othermill. I wanted to thank Racer X for contributing $50 to make that possible. The Othermill is a CNC machine that can make really small PCBs.

Circuit Hacking Mondays is still happening every week. Robert is hosting it. It's more fun if more people come! We're using TinkerCAD and talking about various projects. Kind of like a hardware hacking night.

Thanks Racer X, who found a bunch of parts for the pick n place machine. I'm super excited about that, and hopefully I can get it repaired and functioning again!

Tyler: The proposed cleaning schedule (linked below \/) - Mondays, Thursdays, Saturdays to correspond with trash nights. If anyone wants to go on one of those moving days, they should chime in on Discuss or Slack.

Space Safety Schedule:

   https://discuss.noisebridge.info/t/cleaning-packing-schedule/1879/6
  Ⅹ is thinking of Thursday morning (can do trash), looking for Saturday interest?
  

I talked to Brian, our 2169 landlord, this morning. He has questions about our move out date. His brother is coming by on Thursday to meet me, because I need to drop off the keys to them. They need access to the 2nd floor.

Hearing back from the 272 Capp St landlord. We sent them a redline, and we're waiting for them to get back to us. We'll hear back on Wednesday or Thursday ideally. We'll ideally have the lease in a signable position next week.

Alice, our lawyer, is having a baby and will be going on maternity leave. So we'll be without a lawyer for a while.

Zach: Thanks for dealing with the current landlord. I thought our lease was already signed. How do I get in the loop about that?

Tyler: I can send you the recent redline. It's also on Discuss.

Previous Capp St. #inspection   reporting, marked as private/sensitive.

  https://discuss.noisebridge.info/t/nbsp-inspection/1707

Pyconaut: We're about to get into the 3rd week of the Aaron Swartz Day RF Edition, where we're building a VR museum, OP25 radio rlistener, and a LoRa radio communication device. Anyone who wants to read up on what we're doing can follow this link: https://www.aaronswartzday.org/2020-index/. We'll probably sell kits for this out of NB at some point. It's fun and useful for people who want to be able to text each other without going through cellular or wifi. It can also work if there's a power outage, if you have a battery.


New Philanthropists[edit]

none


New Members[edit]

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership

Ⅹ - Pending 2nd week in teh binder.

Pyconaut: X, were you ever a Member of NB before? Because I always thought you were...

<X had to step away for a moment>

Dan: He was, in 2013. (allegidaly)

Pyconaut: Then I want to know why he's reapplying. As far as I've heard, Membership is for life, even if you can't pay. Your commitment to NB is more important than the money when you're a big M Member. There's been discussion about a Member being de-Member-itized in the past few years.

X: I cannot comfirm nor deny being a Member. I can confirm applying to be though (last week).

Pyconaut: If you can't confirm, and no one else can, then I guess it's okay...

James: Just tell us why.

X: This was discussed last week, and lxpk related a similar story about being possibly not a Member, and it would just be better to reapply, so I wanted to follow that.

Pyconaut: I do think it's an excellence to reconfirm your own excellence in the community, and that other Members trust you. Who were the two big M Members who sponsored you last week?

X: Just lxpk. I'm soliciting another sponsorship this week.

Pyconaut: Then you can't say this is the 2nd week of applying.

X: I thought it takes 2 Members sponsoring to become a Member, but not to continue the process.

James: it has usually been the case that it is fine to go forward without signitures but you must get them for the final concensus

Pyconaut: It might be because of my 4-5 year awareness, but all the applications I remember, they all had signatures before they started.

X:

Pyconaut: It could be the case that that item wasn't moved over in the correct form. We might want to check the meeting notes for that confirmation.

X: This has the old form to it. It does say to complete the application and persuade 2 Members to sponsor your application. But it also does say fill out the application AND have 2 Members sponsor. So it does follow my understanding.

Pyconaut: Any questions for X right now? I will look into the past notes.

Ⅹ: see you at week 3, 4 &=|> weeks...

Tyler: I will sponsor them if we can call it "reaffirming their vows" to Noisebridge.

the-x: dissavows any knowledge or affiliation with such entity, respectfully.

Pyconaut: If people are fine with it, we can move to financial


Financial Report[edit]

Anarchist societies under a capitalist state need money to survive and thrive, yo.

  • Funds in bank: (6/30/2020)

₿/$: 302,346.34 total $ 239,667.90 cash ₿ 62,678.44 crypto 20.73% crypto / cash

we are done with the sell off for now, we will reasses it quarterly, will reevaluate on september 30th.

16 weeks of sell off and average was 8k

Tyler: I need to file our taxes for July 15th. That will hopefully be wrapped up by this Friday.

Fundraising Update[edit]

How's it all going

no updates


--> GUILDS moved to post consensus -->

It could be nice to move guilds pre-meeting.

Consensus[edit]

Proposals from last week [edit]

(Add any items which are consensed upon or someone has raised a principle objection for to the Consensus Items History page.)

Summary of items for Accessibility Consensus (BLOCKED as written) for revision

  • Consensus Item 1 -...for Noisebridge General Meetings
  • Consensus Item 2 - ...video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge classes
  • Consensus Item 3 - ...information and statement on the main website
  • Consensus Item 4 - ...information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space


Consensus Item 1 -for Noisebridge General Meetings[edit]

Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Remote Accessibility After COVID-19 Summary Author of this Record
proposed 6.23.20 Zach Continuing Meeting Remote Accessibility Beyond COVID-19

It is without a doubt that Noisebridge has, under the throws of coronavirus, become more accessible to disabled people than it has ever been before. After years of hardship with a broken elevator, it has been a wonderful shift in these recent weeks to take part in meetings again via new remote options. As a wheelchair user and severely disabled member, I cannot always take buses to the space and I know other disabled members have similar challenges.

Let us move forward as a community and continue this improvement in accessibility. Let us not take steps or rolls backward after the physical space re-opens. We are learning the value of access as a community together, and all the good things that come with it.

This consensus proposal Is for:

1. Continuing video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge General Meetings (usually on Tuesdays), specifically for disabled people as a reasonable disability accommodation, as outlined by Title II and Title III of the American with Disabilities Act.

"'title III of the Act, which requires public accommodations to remove architectural barriers where such removal is "readily achievable," or to provide goods and services through alternative methods, where those methods are "readily achievable'"

"Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Zach


Consensus Item 2 - video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge classes[edit]

Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Remote Accessibility After COVID-19 Summary Author of this Record
proposed 6.23.20 Zach Continuing Class Remote Accessibility Beyond COVID-19

It is without a doubt that Noisebridge has, under the throws of coronavirus, become more accessible to disabled people than it has ever been before. After years of hardship with a broken elevator, it has been a wonderful shift in these recent weeks to take part in meetings again via new remote options. As a wheelchair user and severely disabled member, I cannot always take buses to the space and I know other disabled members have similar challenges.

Let us move forward as a community and continue this improvement in accessibility. Let us not take steps or rolls backward after the physical space re-opens. We are learning the value of access as a community together, and all the good things that come with it.

This consensus proposal Is for:

1. Continuing video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge classes, presentations, and tools, specifically for disabled people as a reasonable disability accommodation, as outlined by Title II and Title III of the American with Disabilities Act.

"'title III of the Act, which requires public accommodations to remove architectural barriers where such removal is "readily achievable," or to provide goods and services through alternative methods, where those methods are "readily achievable'"

"Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Zach

Consensus Item 3 - information and statement on the main website[edit]

Date First proposed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Remote Accessibility After COVID-19 Summary Author of this Record
Discussed 6.23.20 Zach Accessibility information and statement on the main website This consensus proposal Is for:

1. Providing disability access information on the main website (noisbridge.net) in a clear and easy to access way.

This information should include:

a. Possible barriers and physical access information for the current physical space of Noisebridge

b. A point of contact for disabled people to ask questions specifically around disability and gaining access to Noisebridge (phone, email, etc. - more options the better).

c. Information on how to request disability accommodations to attend.

d. A statement on Noisebridge's commitment to excellence via inclusion of people with disabilities

Zach


Consensus Item 4 - information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space[edit]

Date First Discussed 6.23.20 Proposed By Zach Informal Title Accessibility notice Summary Author of this Record
Discussed 6.23.20 Zach Accessibility information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space This consensus proposal is for:

1. Keeping up-to-date durable (laminated) physical postings of accessibility information in a clearly viewable area at the entrance of Noisebridge's physical space.
a. This notice to include some form of contact that disabled people can reach if we cannot access the space.

Zach



Summary of reading out items, all four. Discussion about several blocks presented.

Zach: Is it allowed to block and not attend the meetings?

James: Unfortunately, yes.

X: Are there any Member present who want to block?

Zach: Don't we take questions first? Can someone clarify that.

Pyconaut: Were these proposed last week, or discussed last week?

Zach: Both. They were added before last week's meeting and discussed at last week's meeting.

Ⅹ: Presented at last meeting and confirms they were proposed and discussed.

Pyconaut: Some people were concerned that some of these should not be Consensus items. Could you say why you think these should be big C Consensus and not little c?

Tyler and David mention blocking some of these proposals in Discuss thread. "I would issue a block for the proposed item: “Accessibility information and statement on the main website” simply because I do not think we need to start requiring consensus for updating our website." "The block is not me trying to assert “able-bodied privilege”. It’s because it’s not worth consensing something we can do in an hour. Just reply to this message with the language you want on the page, and we can put it up this afternoon."


Zach: NB operates on do-ocracy, which works for most things. However, for people with disabilities and can't get into the space, the idea of do-ocracy doesn't seem quite fair. The bigger part of the reasoning behind this is, when something has been done do-ocratically, they don't stay. E.g., I put up signs about access the elevator, and put tape down on the floor to keep things out of the way of the path from the elevator. And I would still find a lot of clutter in the way every time I entered the space. I think Kevin said this very well last week: we are defining excellence, making sure these changes stay, and say that we hold these things in high value. I can have people help me put up signs, and that's not the issue. The issue is, will it stay? Will it continue to be updated? I never propose big-C Consensus items without having exhausted all the small-c consensus ways.

Pyconaut: I agree. We had problems with blocking the fire escape in the sewing area, and people didn't care. I think accessibility is something we should put through big-C Consensus so that we have community effort. We want to be a space where people who have trouble accessing spaces can say it is accessible.

Rikke: I second and third that, in favor of doing this with big-C Consensus. Anything that can be do-ocratically done can be undone.

Tyler: I had some issues with the way these were proposed. I don't think issues shouldn't be a 1 week process. (Don't propose right before the meeting)

I don't like the way they're split into 4 items. I would rather have something the community agrees on, rather than trying to sneak through a few items. I don't like the way some of these are drafted. Continued a11y after COVID, could be redrafted to mean more spefically after we move to the new space. I don't think it needs the headers or the ADA Acts. I think it would be better as a more cohesive, single item. It would be nice if it were treated like the anti-harrassment policy, if we write up a more cohesive policy. It seemed like Zach was not willing to address a lot of the things said in the Discuss thread.

Discuss thread: https://discuss.noisebridge.info/t/ada-disability-consensus-items-for-tues-meeting-6-23-and-6-30/1868

Rikke: volunteers to help with typing up a policy and updates... I felt the same as you, Tyler, initially, wrt breaking it into 4 separate items. But then I saw it as distinguishing these as things we agree on and disagree on.

Tyler: I wanted to agree. I saw your post about offering typing services, and I hope that goes somewhere. I would like to see a unified item about ADA policy that we can put together. Most of my objections to the 3rd and 4th items were just point of process, that they would be better as part of an ADA policy.

Zach: I want to stick to the issue at hand, but I also want to say the characterization is ... The first thing I did was post this on Discuss, I didn't try to sneak anything through. It is a very public and open thing. 80% of the things you (Tyler) mentioned were not discussed all week. The characterization that I'm not open to changing the text is not true. I said I was open to changing it. I called someone a name last night, when I was very tired and this thread has been up for a week. As far as this text and what you just brought up, is all new to me. You feel like this is being pushed through, and I see where you're coming from, but I didn't expect this to be so big of a deal. I didn't think this would cause a problem. This is not asking for money, an ADA employee, handlebars in the bathroom, etc. I think it does need more time. As far as the things you recommended, it sounds like you have problems with all of the items, which you didn't mention before. It sounds like this is an increase in block. This is very personal for me, and it really hurts. I apologize that I have not been my best. I agree with Rikke, I am willing to work on the text. I think having the law in our policy is a starting point. I want to be able to invite my disabled friends to to noisebridge, and be able to recommend it.

Steve: Almost everything Tyler said here is something he said in the forum. I want to criticize misdirection from Zach. The privacy issue, he hasn't addressed that. If he's serious about the proposal, he should retract what he said and rewrite the proposal. He falsely claimed that it would be illegal for NB to not pass these proposals. I researched that, and I couldn't find that anything like that is true. He makes a claim and can't defend it, and puts the blame on the other person. He should care about consensus and not devalue opinions of non-capital-M Members. Zach, would you be willing to take down the proposal and work on it, so the privacy concerns are addressed?

Pyconaut: [moderation] Warnings about tone. Re-iterates nothing being done goes against consensus.

Pyconaut: DR to Zach questions about some of the details of items as outlined. Express importance around ability for classes to be conducted in privacy. If these items aren't it, what does it need to be, lets create improvement.

Zach: I wanted to clarify, there seems to be misunderstanding about what the 2nd item is proposing. I used ADA law because it's been around 30 years. This is not proposing all classes need to be streamed. The text says that audio/video streaming can be made available to anyone requesting it. If a disabled person wants to take part in a class, they should be able to. I said the privacy concerns are valid, and I'm willing to work on them. I don't want to rehash what was in the Discuss thread. I take privacy very seriously, and I love that NB is serious about it too. I think we can have privacy AND accessibility access. I think we can come up with solutions and amend the proposals. If people have ideas, I'm all ears. I don't want to argue, I just want to talk about constructive solutions. Let's get into what we can do, let's talk about changes that can be made. I'm all ears about wording that can be changed or added.

Rikke: I want to echo what Zach said about constructive solutions. Let's hear suggestions about wording and technical solutions. I don't think it's right to put all the work on Zach.

Steve: If people want to get real consensus that people are cool with, then asking around for help on the proposal is good. But not retracting the proposal ... I'm asking if he's willing to retract this version of it and propose another one.

James: I think drafting out a document, in the end makes a lot of sense, like the anti-harrassment policy. If you were there, it was a wild time. It was adopted, and accessibility is an issue NB has failed at addressing. Having a cohesive document - I really like that idea. One thing important to note, is that we're all volunteers. Unpaid volunteers. We do what we can with the time we have available. We often do things poorly or not at all. Right now we are in a holding pattern on most actions, so it's a good time to come up with new ideas and implement them. Things often don't get done because we're unpaid volunteers. It's not an excuse though, it just happens and we can do better. The forum thread has gone very poorly, especially when we need to show each other respect and unity. See all of these examples from Discourse:

https://discuss.noisebridge.info/faq

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

   Name-calling
   Ad hominem attacks on a person's character & motivations
   Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
   Knee-jerk contradiction

Seems like issues are not with the proposals so much as the process. We have failed to address ada over the years so now we have the 4 proposals to help with ada and to make discussion happen on this at every meeting. Consensus proposals demand conversation. Multiple proposals demand multiple conversations.

Relay: There are things we can do to mitigate privacy concerns. In the past we've had people record events, and we have them announce ahead of time. If it's going to be recorded, you can decide to stay outside of the area being recorded. ...

Rikke: It's awesome to hear that people are interested in supporting a disability policy. I suggest we take a poll, do people think we'll pass any of the items?

Tyler: If Zach could say that he's willing to withdraw and redraft the consensus items...

Zach: Relay, I really appreciate what you were saying. I share those concerns. There's an assumption that I made here, that I just realized. If you put too little in the consensus item, people will say you're too vague. If you put too much detail, they'll say it's too wordy. It's hard to satisify both. What are the things we can define a little better? I assumed people already knew the privacy policies. One of which is that if you're going to record/stream something, you have to announce very loudly that you're going to do so. I shouldn't make the assumption that everyone knows that. I think it's a great idea to add that.

Does anyone think any of these 4 items will be passed tonight? What I'm hearing is... Sounds like a no, but it's not clearly a no. I would appreciate if the Members would say clearly that they block all/certain items.

Call for Members to express Blocks at this time...

Tyler: I believe that based on @broccoli blocking these items, that he would continue blocking even though he's not here. Just the first two items.. right?

BLOCK BY PROXY/pronouncement

Steve: I have couple specific suggestions that I can send to Zach and Rikke that will help resolve the privacy tension.

Pyconaut: I think a lot of these could be condensed. There's no exact guide on how to write a consensus proposal, and writing them is not exactly easy. Don't immediately think that writing these up is deceitful. They're not meant to immediately change NB's rules. I think everything Zach did to try to get this discussion going was excellent. There might have been some problems in the Discuss thread this week, because people are under a lot of stress right now. Some people are stressed about not being able to get into NB right now, but there are also a lot of people who haven't been able to get into NB for a long time because of accessibility. It sounded like there were teachers (in the Discuss thread) who weren't wiling to teach if streaming was asked of them for students who are disabled. I would hate for there to ever be a class where we have to say that disabled people are not allowed in that class. We need to look into why they aren't willing and find out what solutions can we come up with.

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/More_Consensus_Info

Rikke: I don't say this often, but I literally agree with everything you just said. I hope you'll participate in the drafting of an accessibilty policy at NB.

Zach: From my understanding, there was one person who said they would not teach classes if they had to stream. It seemed like a hard block. Wondering if we need to change the wording so it's only for *certain* classes ... It's important to know when a capital-M Member blocks. Broccoli said he didn't want to attend the meeting today because he was worried he would be called a name. He doesn't like Zoom meetings. I said I would mute myself or leave the meeting if he would be more comfortable that way. I only saw a block related to the first two items and was confused weither it also blocks the third and fourth. A block is supposed to be your opinion and a feeling, and it's important that people know why so we can fix it and make a new draft. I find it weird that people are asking me to retract the proposals.

[The time is now 10:01 PM]

https://discuss.noisebridge.info/t/nbsp-inspection/1707/13 (latest red-lines)

Tyler - can you please share a link to the new lease. It would help me understand the accessibility there.

All of the people who have been engaging with this dicussion - I would like to know if you have disabilities. It's easier for me to talk rather than type, so I would like that people come to these meetings. One thing that concerns me in this process, is that NB doesn't have anything great for protecting minorities. I think it's why we see so many minorities are leaving NB. I don't think I've been treated well in this process. I encourage people to think about what it's like to be disabled in this world and not be able to access the community.

Tyler: Retracting a consensus item happens all the time. The reason I don't want to say I'm blocking is that I don't trust that you won't post it everywhere saying "Tyler hates disabled people." Everyone who posted in the Discuss thread was called either ableist or bigoted. I feel like you would turn things around and

Pyconaut: What the anonymous person said was that they weren't willing to teach classes. "Retract" isn't the wording that's usually used, it's usually "redraft." Assuming that Zach would turn things around angers me.

Zach: Pyconaut, I really appreciate your words. I really felt a sting in what Tyler said. I think what Tyler said came out wrong. I would not do (what you said). I'm not trying to create a smear campaign against people. I hope you believe that. I'm trying to move forward. I think we'll make more progress if we talk about the wording and how to change the proposals.

Steve: Zach did admit to calling someone a bigot and pointing out ableist comments. I'm confused about why Pyconaut jumped in saying Tyler was misunderstanding.

Pyconaut: I was calling out this comment:

"I wouldn’t feel comfortable being forced to do this with the classes I teach. I use the word “forced” here because I take consensed big-c items very seriously. It would mean I’d just stop teaching all together at Noisebridge."

Tyler said this wasn't said, I was just clarifying this part.

X: Check-in on where we are at in the Consensus process, and we are dialoging for # weeks. Ongoing tests of virtualized access/physical. [21:21]

Rikke: I have 2 different suggestions for a path forward. 1. Zach will work with others to redraft the consensus proposal. 2. We pass the 4 items tonight and we still draft a comprehensive policy that the 4 items get subsumed into. Thoughts? Steve has a good point that we can't pass since Broccoli's block is still in place.

James: Broccoli did say that he wanted to discuss further.

Tyler: Following up on my previous comments that were inflammatory, which I apologize for. Yeah, I don't know Zach, all I have are his comments, which were inflammatory. Broccoli said he wanted more discussion, and Zach followed up with "wow we have bigoted members at NB." So that's why I was uncomfortable... I want for the items to be redrafted, and I want to be a part of it. Yes, the wording is important, I want them to be redrafted and modified, not retracted.

This is the link to edit the Consensus items:

   https://www.noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Current_Consensus_Items&action=edit
   
   We can also highlight/draft edit the copy in these notes to be reflected in the meeting notes.
   

Pyconaut: I'm sorry, I let things get a little heated as well. There are of course multiple ways to interpret some of the things people have been saying here. Lots of things have been misconstrued, and some people have said some inflammatory things, because emotions have taken over. This situation matters to everyone, and we just want to make sure we all do this thing right by the whole community. Getting too heated over these things will not help us move forward with it. I am trying to be impartial, but I know I have been pushing for more ADA stuff for a long time. I'm not going to be able to be COMPLETELY impartial, but if it makes any one feel better: in the current form of these items, I block all 4. The ways they are currently drafted will aggravate the community in ways they were never meant to. This is something that will take a while. We are trying to get it done fast, because there is momentum here, but I think we need to take the time to address everyone's concerns best we can. We're all under a lot of stress right now, lets just try to make sure noisebridge is a boat we can all enjoy being a part of.

Zach: I am very concerned about the emotional censorship that happens at NB, especially around oppressive behavior. I feel a lot flak around the behavior I exhibited. I have also said that I would hold my tongue wrt to oppressive behavior. I feel like these items I'm proposing are in law. That I've had to put in so many hours and work into getting these passed... I was not expecting the community to come down so hard on this. I called 2 comments ableist and one person bigoted, that's true. I want to be clear. I have said that I will hold my tongue when future things like that come up. I don't know if I can be part of the process of modifying the proposal with Rikke and Pyconaut. I've been so emotionally and physically taxed by this process of trying to get access to NB, that I have to step back for my health. I am concerned about ADA accessibility in the new building. I'm worried about how the culture of minorities is treated at NB. I'm going to try to do some radio silence. That's all for now.

X: I am adding proposed language change to the consensus items. This text can continue to be edited, and discussed and consensed in up coming meetings.

Rikke: I'm here to volunteer to do exactly that. I'm not 100% clear that we're blocked on all 4 items. I'm going to proceed as if they are. I think what needs to happen now is that we move forward. I'm going to open a new thread on Discuss about the consensus items and reach out to people with concerns. Please reach out to me, participate in that thread. I think we're all done here for now.

Pyconaut: If you don't understand some of the problems around ADA, read up on it. Zach is right to call out comments as ableist. This is an example of an ableist comment: "And yes: If my first post didn’t make that clear I would deny any request to live-stream any class over the internet irregardless of the persons situation. I value reading the room, prompting people, etc. If item two is passed I’d never teach at Noisebridge out of respect for the consensus process." It's an ableist comment; that cannot be denied. With that said, what Zach responded with was pretty aggressive. We shouldn't try to temper all emotions. I think we all need to take a break after this meeting, reflect on what others have said and on what we want to say but don't have the words for in this moment. We can work together to solve these issues.

Steve: +1 on what Pyconaut just said. I want to reiterate what Rikke said. Would anyone block any version of the 4 items? Like a fundamental objection.

X: There are some hard blocks on some of the items. As they are now, they can stand. They are put on indefinite hold until they are withdrawn, modified, or consensed.

Rikke: I think X said that really well. I'm happy to lead the charge on that. Let's please stop talking about it, because I don't think we're getting closer to each other right now.

Tyler: I kind of wanted to talk about it more. I felt like we didn't get into substantive improvements. But if people want to close out, I'm okay with that too.

Rikke: I want to talk about it more, but it's late. Maybe it's just me getting tired.

[The time is 22:46]

Pyconaut: I'm estimating that we're going to draft a new consensus item to incorporate all 4 of these. Then we'll be able to rescind these 4 items. I do think that consensus item 3 and 4 might be okay to leave with not too much modification. 1 and 2 can be combined because they're about making classes, events, meetings accessible outside of the space. I do think we should have a statement in the same way we have the anti-harrassment policy. We [should] have posters in the space, put it on the front page/easily accessible online, and we add it to the pre-meeting.


Request for polling and stated support of Pyconaut's summary

At least 9 of still attending participants supports working further on Consensus for Accessability


Summary of items for Accessibility Consensus (BLOCKED as written) for revision

  • Consensus Item 1 -...for Noisebridge General Meetings
  • Consensus Item 2 - ...video and/or audio attendance options for Noisebridge classes
   Relay- add privacy concerns, as well as create guidelines on how to have events be accessable
  • Consensus Item 3 - ...information and statement on the main website
  • Consensus Item 4 - ...information posted outside the Noisebrige physical space


X: (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Proposed edit to include "We noisebridge are committed to making activities accessible to as many people as possible."

Relay: I'm surprised by the lack of good faith that I've seen a lot in this meeting. I think in general we want to make things accessible, and also with privacy addressed. I think people are more tense from being stuck inside... I hope we'll work this out. We're a great community.

James: Coming into this meeting, reading the Discuss thread, it was clear that this meeting would go very poorly. Using my family as an example, if my dad was yelling at me, I wouldn't call him back 10 minutes later to argue about it with him. This was kind of like that... It's happened in the past where it's like a war of attrition with these kinds of discussions. I want to give us the space ...

Tyler: Announcemnt - I'm going to be at the space on Thursday with one other person. If anyone wants to come pick up stuff or help clean, that will be happening.

X: is up for point on Thursday morning, if you are volunteering for afternoon/eve shift


Proposals for next week [edit]

(Add any items which are consensed upon or someone has raised a principle objection for to the Consensus Items History page.)


GuildMaster's Report[edit]

What is the current state of structural organization at Noisebridge?


  • What guilds are active? (Read the active guilds from Guilds wiki page)
    • (For each guild mentioned, ask if guild rep is present for a brief status update)
  • Would you like to join or start a guild? Checkout our guidelines or contact MetaGuild for help.

Will be a guild meeting thursday at 8, officially 8pm Thursday Look in #guilds Yup yup https://meet.jit.si/MetaGuild Thursday @ 8pm

its part of the philiophy guild secondary meeting

Wednesday has main Philosphy guild meeting


Discussion[edit]

Discussion Item 1[edit]

End of Meeting[edit]

Officially concluded [22:59] Conversation continues.

noisebridge.net is returned to it's rightful home, and is once again WIKI!!!