The NES in the basement is mine, with SMB2
From: nesfr...@outlook.com
To: discuss@synhak.org
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:57:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK
Chris,
Maybe I'm not explaining it right, but we will consense on the original
proposal that has been up for 2 1/2 weeks on Tuesday. Discuss the new proposal
to amend it Tuesday, and consense on the second meeting. There is no violation
of that rule there and therefore isn't valid.
-Steve
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:55:23 -0400
From: ch...@chrisegeland.com
To: discuss@synhak.org
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK
Steve,
After proposals are modified, they are considered new proposals.
Per the meeting on February 25, 2014, which you were present at:
** “ Proposals must be sent in full to discuss@synhak.org, with the exact
wording that will be decided upon. Any modifications to the text must be
considered as a wholly new proposal.”
This was approved by the membership. Your convoluted if-thens system does not
change this. So, yes, this is a new proposal. It's gotta be discussed at next
week's meeting.
Sincerely,
Chris Egeland
PS: Is the NES in the basement mine or yours?
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Steve Radonich IV <nesfr...@outlook.com> wrote:
Chris,
Following the rules is technically impossible as they contradict themselves,
but I am going to amend this proposal as follows:
To change the wording of the original proposal to remove Torrie from SynHak to
read as follows:
To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and
forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for a
period of 180 days.
End Proposal.
So Tuesday May 20th we will consense on the proposal that I proposed on April
30th that reads:
I am proposing the following:
The removal of Torrie Fischer from the SYNHAK community for the following
reasons.
* Negatively talking about SYNHAK affecting the public opinion of the community
on the mailing lists, examples being:
* "Never started SYNHAK, the Akron Hackerspace." - Wed, April 30 2014 17:09
* "Then I hear that I'm being removed as Treasurer due to Devin and Andy's
persecution complex, so I started looking for housing in the
San Francisco because SYNHAK is dead to me." - Wed, April 30 2014 15:59
* "It died months ago when I was convinced to rescind my proposal to remove
Justin from the board." - Wed, April 30 2014 15:59
* "Congrats! I'm so proud of everyone. We are now (in)famous within the
hacker communities." - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49
* "RIP SYNHAK. Killed by bystander apathy." - Wed, April 30 2014 14:29
* Publicly attacking Steve Radonich IV and Andy B. on the mailing list by
unjustly calling them names, examples being:
* "Remember, folks: you voted this mental midget of a person onto the board
:)" - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 - Directed towards Andy
* "Remember, folks: I'm someone who should be put up with! You all decided
to go along with his plan to introduce more rules and bureaucracy to stop
someone from forcing the community to address a situation where they feel
completely unsafe!" - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 - Directed towards Steve
* "A community that doesn't treat me like some strange sexual fascination
as if my genitals define who I am." - Wed, April 30 2014 17:09 - Directed
towards Steve
* "Steve loves rules and has an authoritarian stance on everything. Thats
the only reasonable answer that can explain this majestic piece of legalese:" -
Wed, April 30 2014 16:12 - Directed towards Steve
* Using her position of Treasurer to target those she has a disagreement
with:
* "Devin - It will be reimbursed just not now, but me and Andy have been
told no on reimbursements and just only us. Given reciepts to others to get the
money. Someone took something the wrong way, and they are attacking back using
the position as treasurer. But this needs to stop right now, because it is
discriminatory." - Tue, April 29 2014 - Meeting Minutes
It is with these issues, and others that I may not even be aware of, that I
feel Torrie Fischer is no longer someone SYNHAK can afford to have around.
Causing division and strife within the community, then refusing to take
responsibility for it. She has shown that she can't be trusted in a position of
power within SYNHAK as she uses it as a weapon on her personal enemies.
Personally attacking members, calling them transphobes when there is no
evidence of such, talking negatively about SYNHAK, and saying that SYNHAK is
dead are all reasons for removal. Plus if she thinks it's dead then there is no
reason for her to be here any ways as it will just cause trouble.
This proposal has been on the table for a few weeks, and has been discussed at
2 meetings now. The proposal that I proposed today would just amend it to read
as stated above. Certainly that does not violate any rules.
-Steve
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:40:46 -0400
From: ch...@chrisegeland.com
To: discuss@synhak.org
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK
Steve,
Keep it professional. I'm not insulting you, so I demand that you refrain from
doing so to me.
Who wrote the rules on the Proposals page is irrelevant. It was consensed upon
January 1, 2013. As such, it is policy. As I mentioned, your convoluted
system of if-thens did absolutely nothing to change the requirement that
proposals are required to be discussed at one meeting, then consensed upon at
the following meeting. As someone who has been involved with SYN/HAK since day
one, I can tell you this is always how we have done things and that I am
certain that this is how the policy works.
If you wish to change that requirement, submit a proposal to do so. Otherwise,
I am demanding that you follow our policies as written, and will be keeping an
eye on things to ensure that you do so.
Sincerely,
Chris Egeland
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Steve Radonich IV <nesfr...@outlook.com> wrote:
Chris maybe you don't understand english, or whoever wrote these rules doesn't
but they are contradictory. I specifically remember on a number of occasions
where a proposal was brought up on a tuesday/wednesday and decided on at the
next meeting as the rules state:
* Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for at least
one week before any decision is mate.* Proposals are decided upon at the first
meeting that immediately follows that one week discussion period.
A week being defined as 7 days, so if we count, Wednesday (1), Thursday (2),
Friday (3), Saturday (4), Sunday (5), Monday (6), and Tuesday (7) May 20. And
the conclusion of the one week discussion would be Tuesday May 20th. These
rules contradict themselves so much that people can pick and choose which ones
to go by. I am well aware of the policies in place, and if you choose to go
forward with that, then this would be an amendment to reword the proposal, and
the original proposal consensed on next week.
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:11:58 -0400
From: ch...@chrisegeland.com
To: discuss@synhak.org
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK
This is upsetting to say the least. Steve, you seem to be gungho about
changing policy at SYN/HAK. I respect that. There is definitely some change
needed within SYN/HAK. However, it's very upsetting to see the person who is
unquestionably the most adamant about changing policy utterly failing to
understand our current policies. I find it dangerous to have someone so
unfamiliar with existing policy being so adamant about changing it.
We will NOT be consensing on this on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 because this is a
new proposal. The wording and terms of the proposal have materially changed.
It is required by policy that this proposal be discussed at the next meeting.
The earliest this proposal could come to consensus is Tuesday May 27, 2014. My
logic is that on the official Proposals policy page (which was adopted almost a
year and a half ago), it states the following:
Proposals are discussed for one meeting, and decided upon at the meeting that
immediately follows.
Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for at least
one week before any decision is made.
During that week, discussion must happen during a regular weekly meeting.
Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately follows that
one week discussion period.
You need to be at the deciding meeting to block consensus or otherwise
contribute to the decision.
Your convoluted system of if-thens did not change the fact that proposals are
required to be announced at a meeting and then are eligible to be consensed
upon at the next meeting. As such, I hold that this proposal must be discussed
at next Tuesday's meeting.
Also, I find this to be an extraordinarily bad faith attempt to remove someone,
given that just yesterday at the meeting she made it known that she will be out
of town for two weeks starting tomorrow. To me, this sounds like "Hey guys,
she's gonna be out of town, let's meet in secret and kick her out of SYN/HAK."
> *** Torrie - so that's a really amazing idea, but I'm leaving for San
> Francisco thursday but I'm coming back in 2 weeks. Can we meet thursday to
> work out a plan
Sincerely,
Chris Egeland
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Steve Radonich IV <nesfr...@outlook.com>
wrote:
Following the events at last nights meeting, and discussion with many different
members, I've decided to move forward with my proposal to have Torrie removed
from the SYNHAK community. I am going to make some slight modifications to it
below and please give your feedback, this will be concensed (Spelling?) on next
Tuesday.
The proposal is as follows:
To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and
forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for a
period of 180 days.
End Proposal.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
