On Monday, March 10, 2014 21:13:54 Craig Bergdorf wrote: > below are the minutes from tonight's board meeting: > > > > > Board meeting 3/10/14 > > In attendance: > Becca Salchak > > Craig Bergdorf > > Andrew Buczko > > Justin Herman > > Chris Egeland > > Devin Wolfe > > Torri Ficher > > AJ9 > > Philip Patnode > > Ken Burns > > Mike Grieslik > > Alex Kot > > > > No moderator > > Devin opens by covering procedure the board functions is to make sure that > the space runs properly
I'm gonna acquire us a dead tree edition of Robert's Rules of Order to have at the space for such instances. > > Ken: points of contention going on at the space need for community Working > Group to help solve problems and mediate. The CWG Consists of members not > tied to the conflict at hand. > > Items like the sublease, proposal to remove from office. Ken put out a temp > proposal about the community working group and plans on proposing it at the > meeting this week. > > Thinks could be around 5 people on the CWG he volunteers to be one of them > no board members or champions. Gives the parties involved would be given a > chance to share their side in private. And the CWG would come to a decision > that is true to bylaws and the interest of the group. And the > recommendations would go before the board and the membership without open > debate. The members would vote on the recommendations and then carried out. > All the notes of the moderation would be archived off so members could > audit the notes if the so wished. He would like to have this in place in a > week so within the next few weeks we will be able to act on it. > > Aj9: asks would tis take the power away from the leaders? > > Ken: no, they have no authority they can only make recommendations. > > Becca: are these permanent members? > > Ken: yes but after the few issues we have are solved they would be dissolved > > Torri: likes this model, she thinks we should review after the process is > done and possibly make a bylaw amendment. > > Mike: does the group bypass the board? > > Ken: results first go to the board they can decide if the proper procedures > were followed then it would be released to the members. > > Chris: States that the discussion on the removal of Devin and Justin has > been proposed and that we will discuss it at the meeting this week. Then > will be voted on the following > > AJ9: Has there been any discussion of hiring an outside party to mediate? > > Ken: There hasn't been a discussion yet but if we don't see a way forward > he suggests that we possibly go that route. > > Craig: suggests we get outside people to sit on this board. > > Ken: either way they are just making a recommendation. > > Justin: feels that a professional mediator but because of time restraint we > might not be able to use outside source. > > Ken: is there a master list of members? > > Chris: yes and as a member you can request from Andrew. > > Justin: can we use non members > > Ken: that is up for discussion. Who decides the group? > > Chris: feels it should be up to members. Or have the board select the > people then the membership agrees on it. > > Devin: that's going to drag on the parties in the dispute should decide > > AJ9: agrees > > Craig: thinks we should take a quick vote > > Justin: both sides submit 3 non partial people then the members can decide > > Chris : for your proposal will you submit the list of the issues > > Ken: yes I will list the sub-lease and the removal of officers. If we could > refrain from talking about them until we get through this process just to > keep the heat down. > > > > > > Aj:formally introduced herself, has liability insurance for her area of > synhak, takes role of liaison for something new entertainment for this. > > Devin: we don't have a formal complaint system when we formed synhak the > board would handle business and champions handle day to day. > > Torri: champion manages day to day bills, trash, building maintenance. > Nothing more but it has been extended to conflict res. But doest feel that > is appropriate that we should be able to solve our issues as adults. > Champions have the power to doacraticly take over an office. > > Devin: can we agree on more concrete terms? > > Torrie: I think the members should be involved > > Devin: then it will eventually vote on and become a bylaw > > Torri:No > > Devin: so far most of the complaints already go to the champions. > > Andy: can we have a figure head > > Torri: I am terrified of that no > > Chris: technically as champion I have no authority but people still ask > permission from me > > Torri: that is just a social thing that we need to break. They can be > conflict res. People if they want to be they are like the manager of > mcdonalds > > Devin: what do we do about complaints? > > Torri: that is wat the CWG does > > Devin: but they are not concrete... > > Torri: the members should be responsible for this but I want the CWG to be > permanent I wish to continue this Tuesday Permanent only after we've evaluated how this go at it works out. I really think this is a very promising solution to future issues. No other space I know of has such a system. Others have seen it and are watching to see how it plays out in SYNHAK. > > Justin: I think this could be a way to go I think we should start with our > champions and if they are then found to ave a conflict of intrest then > someone else would be brought in. > > Devin what would craig do if he has a problem with devin then who does he > go to > > Torri: I feel we should stop this convo and continue it tomorrow Chris > seconds > > Devin: torri is not a board member chris motions and craig seconds Vote? Ok > vote passed table until tomorrow > > Andy: I propose to remove non members from discuss > > Devin I feel we move the discussions to the members list for these > discussions and not just the discuss list I don't feel it needs to be a > proposal > > Andy: I retract that proposal. > > Alex: What is the Sysadmin can we update the bylaws > > Torri: Sysadmin I feel isn't necessary unmles he is more a security officer > that would monitor a pincode system and making sure that we are reasonably > safe from anyone who would want to take retribution > > Justin:they should be responsible for our website and a point of contact > for people who want to work on the network > > Torri: I feel that chris as sysadmin didn't maintain by himself we all did > we don't need just one person for this we have the noc list > > Alex: perhaps writing up compliance laws to stop people from torrenting and > stuff > > Justin:thinks that a lot of us can do the positions as officers but each > officer is a point of contact. > > Torri: thinks that we need to police ourselves. > > Alex: but it is a liability because if someone comes in to audit they will > ask for our compliance acceptable use policy > > Chri: I feel that they should comply with time warners policy > > Becca: I feel like we should have one of these when we sign on to the wifi > > Chris: sysadmin was a deligation campions > > Devin: I agree with Becc just post it on the wall > > Craig: print out time warner > > Chris: put it in the binder web filter? > > Everyone: no > > Devin: not a proposal 3 page emails? Come on make it short > > Torri: im not going to make simple emails for complex situations > > Devin: lets do this for emails and discussion > > Devin: discuss was shut down... whats the acceptable use. > > Torri: I locked it because the list is ment for discussion and people were > just shitting on each other I felt it was a bad representation of us. > > Becca: I feel like it should be mentioned to the board first > > Justin: I feel like we were being grounded > > Devin we need to watch our tone... some people were really frantic because > there were worried parties > > Becca: I didn't even understand what was going on... > > Torri: yes that was un excellent im sorry I should have explained it > > Devin: I feel it should be a consensus not a single person with the power > > Chris: what authority were you using > > Torri: I was using doacracy to put out the fires I think we need to decide > and make rules for list moderation > > Devin: doacracy isn't just doing it is what the consensus and the person > who is willing to step up does it. We need to define doacracy > > Chris: I don't think it requires consensus I think if I feel the community > will agree with it then it is ok > > Devin : but what if what you think the consensus is is actually not the > consensus we need to evaluate how we define doacracy not noisebridge > > Torrie: if it is going to affect the community then you are going to have > to take responsibility I don't think it is very clear in these minutes so I'll attempt to reiterate what I had said: I wholly accept responsibility for shutting down discuss@ the past weekend. In retrospect, it was entirely unexcellent. I live and work in the open source world. We're aware of what emergency moderation on a list means, and it sometimes happens. I should have communicated that in advance, but there was obviously a big disconnect between my instinct to do-ocratically put a band-aid on this great split that was tearing us all apart and what the average hakker sees. Sometimes its pretty easy to forget that not everyone at SYNHAK knows how mailing lists work. I had mistakenly assumed that folks understood what moderation meant. The general consensus I perceived from the community via in person discussion, twitter, and IRC was that everyone had had enough. This had been going on for over two weeks and zero real progress was being made. discuss@ is meant for discussion, and picking apart everyone's points while hiding behind e-mails is *not* discussion. I don't think there is much question about that. A controversial thread had popped up which quickly exploded into a heated argument several replies deep. I came to the conclusion that we all needed to take a break, enjoy the weekend, and cool off for a bit. Nobody seemed to want to step up and either moderate the list or try to put out the fires in other ways, so I decided to take responsibility for this by enabling moderation and taking a vigilant eye on the moderation queue to make sure that discussion unrelated to the argument didn't get lost. On a related note, nobody seemed to actually send any emails to discuss@ that weren't related to the argument. If I had seen them, they would've gotten through moderation and onto the list. > > Justin : I agree that we need to fine our own and not just follow the other > haker spaces blindly > > Torri: doacracy consensus and excellence go hand and hand. > > Craig: isn't this why we have maintainers? > > Chris: Maintainers is entirely volunteer maintainers arnt required to > maintain > > Torri: I wanted Maintainers to be like open source Maintainers. Isn't to > maintain but to make it easier for others to contribute encourages > deligation does not run the show. There was quite a bit more interesting discussion about this that seems to have gotten cut off, which is about the point at which the board meeting kinda dissolved. I'll write a bit more about my opinions later and post a link to discuss@, though it follows the same general idea that I presented at SparkAK: The role of a maintainer shouldn't be to actually "maintain" a piece of equipment, but more of a role that actively enables others to contribute to something. The example I used (roughly): Its one thing to be the person who always fixes the 3d printer or does some awesome stuff with it, but the maintainer should also be documenting their work and sharing their findings with interested persons who might want to contribute feedback and improvements. > > Alex: I think the maintainers should actually be a point of reference > > Justin: I propose we table this everyone second that motion passed meeting > over. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
