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 [email protected], 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 <[email protected]>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: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > 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 > <[email protected]>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: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > 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 > <[email protected]>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 > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list > [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list > [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
