Minutes:Meeting Minutes 20240709

Minutes for 2024-07-09

During the July 2 member meeting, Lauren Yellen added an open letter to the meeting agenda, and read it aloud. The discussion lasted much longer than people were able to stay for that meeting, so during that meeting we agreed to have a follow-up discussion meeting one week later.

The following meeting took place from 7pm to 9:30pm on July 9, in the common area. Bree Bartholomew hand-wrote the following notes on paper, which are photographed in an album. Extra lines indicate page breaks.

Emerson: emotional gauge

Board member statements:

Frank: hopeful

agreement w/ Matt's letter

transparency

facts

Jan: explain where coming from

privacy reasons

hopeful/tense

discuss policies

help form them

standing rules come from members

no abuse of power or people

Mel: board member and advocate

board will come together on a statement

has different perspective than Matt

addressing names given by Matt with respect to consent

balancing information and privacy

crafting policy

open to perspectives/viewpoints

Jim: inappropriate that offered to allow viewing of video

Mara: what went wrong & how to ensure it doesn't happen again

how do we change process to fix it

Anne-Marie: other group on board

this wasn't really about parking tickets

Dave not informed of such

1st verbal warning

2nd write-up/warning

3rd suspension

document process

nothing documented

person not aware/no board paperwork

Matt: do you want a document on wall rather than electronic?

(AM): eyes, in file cabinet

(MA): people not hearing verbal as a warning

giving a form tells victim that board is giving them permission to do it again

(AM): feels that people will straighten up after a warning

Paul A.: paper makes intent clear

Jo-ann: disagreement with Emerson about accountability circles, assume

Alex: what disciplinary action

who may not referring to only

(AM): not referring to anything specific, just wanting clarification

Emerson: definition of things as a warning

prefers natural consequences

holding accountable vs penalizing

accountability circles

keeping records

Jo-Ann: disagreement w/Emerson

accountability circles assume people 100% care

hears about problems + nothing happens

feels that telling people not to allows problems to recur

Nate B.: would this have changed the outcome?

maybe 1/3

this is about situations leading to a ban

merit to process

no process is perfect

Joann: if not accountable, gone

Frank: process-oriented

legal system

if you take a swing at someone, don't expect a warning

clear-cut

Jody: i3 designed to be 'wibbly-wobbly' on purpose

a list of things you can't do is antithetical to i3

if you need, rules this may not be for you (YMCA)

Nate: how would this play out if there was a manager?

it wouldn't be i3 anymore

afraid when TechShop showed up

Nate cont.: TechShop was very different

can’t break things to all

many other models

Emerson: process for members, advocates

some members have complained

process for member (advocate)

document in a drive

a little vague

someone else will go to board

Paul A.: How do you determine whether a person does/fit?

Jody: determined by board, who

(AM): standard rules

who agrees to talk to board

Mel cont.: advocates can say it isn't the first time

concern comes up and not everyone knows advocates are tasked with collecting information

compiled in report

any disciplinary action in a report

(AM): was that information conveyed to a person?

Mel: that depends on privacy requests and whether the reader was directly involved

(AM): have to make sure that person being discussed is made aware

Frank: more transparency

shouldn't collect a pile of complaints

Mara: what level of tracking/writing down is reasonable?

Alex: understanding when note-taking is more than uphill

Nate: Circuit breaker

useful not to see as punishment

causing harm to space, interrupt causal chain

Mara: Members can ask someone to leave

aim for everyone cools down first

aim for quick resolution

Mel: likes idea of more mediation

most i3 members don't want to be bothered

finding manpower is a problem can't fill existing positions

Lauren: people who want to volunteer have been told they can't or aren't willing to work with current structure

Nate: amount of workload compared to accountability circles

Emerson: spread the load

often not fun

split model?

would rather have someone tell her she messed up than get a warning

Frank: it can get resolved in accountability circle, great

if not, moves ahead

Dave Hurt: working with people you don't want to is part of being on the board

here to make i3 better, who is sitting next to you shouldn't matter

vote people in efficiently

(MA): accountability circle turns it into something extremely nebulous

person complaining will feel nothing happens

accountability circles involve someone's best friends

Emerson: when joining one, have conversations about situations ahead of time

decide on own consequences

3 times conversation, then warning

none of this is going to happen quickly

Emerson cont.: only person who can fix it is person doing it

differentiating between dispute and safety

Paul A.: issues that can + can't wait handled by advocates

Nate: is accountability circle a standing thing?

Jim: best done outside of board?

Nate: how does an accountability circle defend itself against "secret society"?

there's paperwork we have to file, that's where board came from

other organizations have directors, we have members

Jo-Ann: this is really complicated, why not just have more member advocates

accountability circles are cliques, and essentially member advocates

Jo-Ann cont.: being on board a chance to make i3

Alex: no one person will know how to solve this

it will look different each time

obvious that process needs to be revamped

Jim: is accountability circle a group of member advocates?

Emerson: a group of people who hold each other accountable

if you don't want to do this, you don't

Bree: definition of accountability circle goes back and forth between who gets to feel better

Frank: how do you not form an echo chamber?

(AM): talk to person and try to resolve it first

Paul A.: hang-up on what constitutes an accountability circle

table that discussion

make it available to member advocates

Paul Lee: accountability circles can't be mandatory or resistance

Nate: discussion of who gets to be in an accountability circle

if you've been around a while, you get an invitation

Mel: new divergence needs directness

other people might consider directness rude

most people in good faith

different ideas on what the right thing is

Isaiah: does standard rules say there is a hard limit on member advocates?

Mel: no, but we try to have at least two

Jim: it makes sense to have accountability circle be made up of member advocates, separate from board

Dave Henry: member advocates limited by the amount of people who are willing to do it

(MA): No one likes being a member advocate

Form Voltron

Jo-Ann: If we had a minimum of 5 people to volunteer to be an advocate tonight, who would?

Mel: This has been an ongoing issue

Jo-Ann: Addressing Nate on when someone should be an advocate/in circle

Frank: clear inventory on roles open for next board meeting

not always clear how many positions open

Paul A.: Toolbox

options - 5 things that fit i3 culture

Lauren: Not a clear defined process

educating members

how communicate internally

everyone has a preferred method

all goes back to healthy communication

Lauren cont.: processes, hosting events

doesn’t want anyone else to go through

Hakim: redundancy on how we communicate

if one fails

Alex: In favor of multiple advocates

being aware of burnout/rotate out

Dave Hurt: Been a pattern over the last year where people are weaponizing the harassment policy

unwillingness to work things out

(MA): Human nature

multiple means of communication

there should be a message board at i3 through media department

it's always true that we want to communicate better

(MA cont.): example is communication about this meeting

Nate: As the group grew, we ended up spinning out onto different email lists, then Slack

People still don’t use Slack

Hakim’s board is essentially a newsletter but no one wants to run newsletter

Paul Lee: Stay on what happened with him leading up to

Never told he was talking about suicide too much

Jody: I told you and depression affects your perception and memory

Jim: If an issue has been brought to a member advocate's attention, document them on letter it mentions the verbal warning and lack of participation

Nate: Friends on board

This is hard

Not all of us know what we are doing

Patience

Acknowledge everyone here has an interest in improving

Frank: "Don’t talk to me" doesn’t apply to someone conducting i3 business

(MA): There are steps that are pointless

Pt can’t report back what board said

whole board isn’t lying

point being that someone who can’t be reasoned with necessitates skipping a step

Holly: Be excellent to each other

oopsie (unintentional) vs. problems that can’t be resolved by conversation between two people

Emerson: Trauma means that things aren’t always taken the way that they are meant

Hakim: You don’t have to get along to be respectful

Lack of respect necessitates accountability

can’t progress until people move out of emotion

Workshops & classes: how to be excellent to each other

Inevitable that you'll offend someone sometime

Lauren: Healthy communicator (rebranding member advocate) responsible for determining whether communication is healthy

Mara: Noisebridge does conflict resolution that way

Having this conversation often is part of keeping space healthy

Mel: Paul Lee vs. MA is an example of threading the nice vs. direct

Nate: Punching judders are useful to me

things work for a while and can be revisited

classes should appear on schedule

build on positive

remain open-minded

already scheduled what some

Marie: Being an expert in communication

excellent works in 99% of times

Jody: Problem is 1%

there have been nonviolent communication classes

Does anyone have ideas about who could come in?

Emerson: several years of experience agrees that an outsider might be good

has resources

Lauren: Happy to organize bringing people in as long as there will be participants

(MA): Katie did non-violent communication class probably but is a professional

there could have been questions asked, but weren’t

can’t set up a system based upon everyone improving

spiritual growth should be assumed to be non-universal

Jo-Ann: culture is an intentional act

we get to pick the norms

if you don’t like them hack the space and change them

if we build culture as intentional space AND write it down

details are what matter

case by case, because no one pattern will fit everyone

Nate: Control H in Portland

membership form asks applicant to describe how you have resolved problems in the past

Mel: Vision statement?

Jo-Ann: Things that are deliberate and actionable

rules can be changed

it has to be intentional for this space

Lauren: Overwhelmed by rules, amount of

update and shrink down

Isaiah: Is there anything that states that the board can’t say, "If you have any questions about this decision..."

retrospective to understand where policies fell short

email to say "Board has voted on this!"

Nate: Weaponization of "Don’t Talk to Me" is super useful

Nate cont.: someone who opts out of communication with a lot of members, is opting out of being a member

this indicates where communication is breaking down

can we use this to identify early and intervene

Jody: idea of doing better is a board thing

split into 1/2 board changing at a time to retain knowledge & experience

assumption of goodwill

board is choosing to be the asshole and will get it wrong

hold feet to fire, but also be patient

official form of communication is mailing list

if you didn't see it, that's on you

Jody cont.: Following the rules isn't wrong

(MA): Meeting close at 9:30

Paul A.: end how after defining action points

Jan: We have rules

calls to discuss rules

rules are necessary and have to be enforced

it sucks to be the asshole

increasing amount of property that was left

addressed herself in her role to head it off at the pass

tends to be patient and give time form for property

went on wiki and pulled rules and read through to make sure she was following rules

didn’t want to talk about it anymore after numerous attempts and left it on desk

Jan cont.: How do you feel about space filling up?

We have the rule because there isn’t room for all members to bring desks

wanted to make it an official donation

tax & insurance implications

certain amount of money towards equipment

(w)hout information, no idea whether it is donation or loan

Lauren: Productive conversation

do we want to continue these discussions?

Add Hack i3 to calendar once/month?

Isaiah: Notice for meetings?

Mel: 10 days notice

Hakim: Plan of Action - dealing with parking tickets, bar code?

Mel: QR code already in place

Hakim cont.: Bring out of virtual world, to real world

Dave Henry: Wiki Wednesdays is meant for dealing with property

Jan promotes it

Nate: show and tell

print out wiki pages

info box, QR code

Jody: Hack the Space meeting is what the member meeting is supposed to be

(PL): Meetings are long enough already

(MA): separate meetings to critique and praise are a good idea

(PL): Festivus pole

(MA): Yes!

trimming the by-laws

Isaiah: Number of people involved who are not interested in hacking

(MA): Sausage meeting

Nate: Single mailing list for everything got huge

Spinoff email list was called sausage list

Mara: One meeting and see if it becomes a problem

Mel: We already voted to do it at member meetings

Mara: Does anyone want to take the lead on improving parking tickets? Lauren? Mara

Action item for next meeting is an alternate method for resolving disputes

Hakim: Voice-to-text for minutes

Previous Meeting	Next Meeting
Meeting Minutes 20240702	Meeting Minutes 20240806