Bylaw Revisions/Additions Vote: Open Forum September 27, 2016 8:30pm - Special Meeting October 11, 2016 7:30pm

105 views
Skip to first unread message

Elly Hall

unread,
Sep 24, 2016, 3:07:48 PM9/24/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Hello everyone,

The is an announcement that Leadership is calling a Special Meeting to vote on proposed bylaw revisions/additions that have been in the works for a few months.  Leadership has been working very hard to solidify ideas for bylaw revisions/additions that we have been throwing around at the Hive for several years.

There will be an open forum on September 27, 2016 at 8:30pm after the Tuesday meeting.  Members are encouraged to attend and add their suggestions, additions, and improvements.  This is the time for discussion.  Once the bylaw revisions/additions are officially proposed on the list, they will be voted on as stated.  Any changes to what is stated will require a separate vote at a different Special Meeting, which is perfectly fine (Special Meetings with quorum are just kind of difficult to reach)!

The Special Meeting for the vote will be on Tuesday October 11, 2016 at 7:30pm.  This will allow us to synthesize and take into consideration any input proposed at the open forum, and still have time to officially post the details of the bylaw revisions/additions on the list for review  at least 10 days (per the bylaws) before the Special Meeting.  

Each related group of revisions or additions to a section will be their own independent vote.

I will follow up soon with the proposed revisions/additions in their "semi-working" form, so anyone attending the open forum can review them beforehand, and anyone who cannot attend can give their suggestions on list. Please post on or before September 28, as we will officially propose the additions/revisions no later than October 1st.

Let's make some improvements!! :)

Elly

President | Hive13

Elly Hall

unread,
Sep 27, 2016, 6:39:09 PM9/27/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Small miscommunication among leadership!  Sorry this is being sent to you all so late.  Hopefully those who wish to attend the Open Forum tonight can at least skim this.

Again, this is a "semi-working" document; it is not in it's 100% final form.

Thanks everyone!

Brad Walsh

unread,
Sep 27, 2016, 6:52:31 PM9/27/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Looks good to me. 

Thanks,

Brad
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 3:11:28 AM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Looks mostly good!  If any of this was covered during in-person discussion, please forgive.  I'm in Louisiana and was unable to attend.  I've added these as comments on the google doc, too.  Some of the comments there are slightly more terse than here.

Comment/question: Does the code of condutct exist yet?  I didn't see it on github.  If not, how is it being created?  I kind of feel that it is important to know what the code of conduct entails before voting on agreeing to follow it.  Also, should we consider leaving the code of conduct in a more malleable form than a bylaws addendum which is subject to quorum, etc.?  Might be nice to be able to amend it via a simple Vote of Membership.  Thoughts?

Comment/question: has the language for disputes been looked over by a real attorney?  If not, I think it is worth spending a small amount of money to get a professional critique. My cousin is a business attorney and I could probably get her to look if I asked nicely.  If she did not have time, I have had great experiences with a local law firm which drafted all the liability releases I used for my business but this would not be free.

Comment/Question: There have been cases where (rightly or not) Leadership of the Corporation have been accused of showing favoritism or being unfair. Why "Probationary Members may be expelled by a vote of at least one third of the Leadership" ? This strikes me as a little prejudicial. I feel like new members should be given the benefit of the doubt, especially considering how few people would need to get together to gang up on someone with a third being the threshold. Why not majority with a tie being affirmative?

Comment: Vote 9 re: access to the mailing list. Since the beginning of the hive, the primary mailing list "cincihac...@googlegroups.com" has been an open, public list. I strongly feel that transparency is a goal the Hive should strive for. Having a public mailing list serves the goal of transparency. Why does Vote 9 exist? Access to the mailing list is available to the general public. Why does it need to be part of the membership addendum? Can someone in favor of this explain what the goal is because I don't get it.

Comment: Suspension procedure.  I think the heading on section 2 needs to be more descriptive.  I think this really should read: "Then the Leadership of the Corporation meets in order to vote on what to do."  1. You've defined "Leadership of the Corporation" - USE IT.  2. While it is IMPLIED that Leadership would need to meet in order to vote, being explicit about it here is more clear

Comment: Suspension procedure.  I really do not like "2e. The meeting may be closed.  Leadership may request the presence of anyone connected to the issue." Closed meetings are anti-transparency. I'm going to guess that the idea here would be to allow Leadership to discuss and make decisions without being hampered or distracted by members not a part of the leadership attending a suspension meeting. I really don't like the idea of outright closed meetings - I think this is counter how the space should operate. Alternatively, I would wholeheartedly support instead "Leadership may ask anyone present at a suspension meeting to leave in the event that they were being disruptive or interfering with proceedings." I think this gives Leadership the explicit right to remove people getting in the way of accomplishing goals while allowing interested parties to be involved as long as they do so in a constructive, respectful manner.

thanks,
-D

Paul

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 9:02:26 AM9/28/16
to Hive13
In addition to the comments by Dave B. I have comments on several sections:
-------- Suspension Proposal - Section 2.ii -------------
2.ii A suspended member is still responsible for paying any Membership dues as owed.

This seems overly burdensome. If a member can be suspended for 90 days after a closed meeting by the leadership, they could be forced to pay up to $150 just to stay a member, without access to the physical space, while the bureaucratic wheels turn.

I feel that if a member is suspended from the physical space then they should also be relieved of the need to pay for the space.

This essentially creates a situation where if a member is suspended there is a high likelihood they will stop paying their membership (since they can't access the space, and $150 is a fair chunk of change) and be kicked out due to a lack of paying dues.

This gives the leadership carte blanche to kick out members without officially kicking them out, especially if the member is not well off.

A much more reasonable approach here would be that if their membership is suspended they do not need to pay during the period of time they are suspended.

-------- Suspension Proposal - Section 3.c -------------
3. c. If one quarter or more of the voting members vote “Remove”, the suspended member’s membership is immediately terminated.  No further appeals will be heard.

Quorum is 50% of the membership (about 30 people), one quarter of the vote could be as low as 8 people.  Was this the intent that a membership can be terminated by only 8 votes? This means that if the Leadership (COO, Secretary, President, 5 board members) is unanimous in wanting to terminate a membership, they can both suspend the member, stage a vote, and if only the leadership votes to terminate the membership he is removed as a member.  Half of quorum (about 15 people) seems like a more reasonable vote percentage.

------------- Vote 9 -------------
I also think Vote 9 needs to be completely re-written:
Add to the Membership Addendum Section 2.(b).i: “Access to the mailing list is considered an extension of access to the physical space.”

I have multiple problems with this section.

It is unclear if this means that only members will have access to the mailing list. The section in the Membership Addendum after these changes will read:

2. Full Member
(a) Full Members have a right to:
--- (i) A key or other method of entry to the physical workspace;
--- (ii) twenty-four hour access to the physical workspace;
--- (iii) reasonable inspection rights of corporate records;
--- (iv) store a reasonable amount of equipment at the phsyical workspace
--- (v) 16 minutes of laser cutting time per month which does not roll over.
(b) Dues shall be $50 per month
--- (i) Access to the mailing list is considered an extension of access to the physical space.

Now, in addition to putting the addition in the wrong spot (under section b which has to be the membership dues), this implies that a "key or other method of entry" will be required for the mailing list and that "24 hour access" will not be allowed for the mailing list unless you are a member.

Further it implies that you will be able to store a reasonable amount of equipment on the mailing list?

I feel this should be reworked entirely to state more clearly what its goal is, and that its summary is totally inadequate, since while it is only once sentence, it is very unclear what its intent was.  Was the intent to limit the mailing list soley to current members? Was the intent to have a formal means of banning people from the mailing list?  Was it supposed to be a requirement that current members subscribe to and participate on the mailing list?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Dave B. <blu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Looks mostly good!  If any of this was covered during in-person discussion, please forgive.  I'm in Louisiana and was unable to attend.  I've added these as comments on the google doc, too.  Some of the comments there are slightly more terse than here.

Comment/question: Does the code of condutct exist yet?  I didn't see it on github.  If not, how is it being created?  I kind of feel that it is important to know what the code of conduct entails before voting on agreeing to follow it.  Also, should we consider leaving the code of conduct in a more malleable form than a bylaws addendum which is subject to quorum, etc.?  Might be nice to be able to amend it via a simple Vote of Membership.  Thoughts?

Comment/question: has the language for disputes been looked over by a real attorney?  If not, I think it is worth spending a small amount of money to get a professional critique. My cousin is a business attorney and I could probably get her to look if I asked nicely.  If she did not have time, I have had great experiences with a local law firm which drafted all the liability releases I used for my business but this would not be free.

Comment/Question: There have been cases where (rightly or not) Leadership of the Corporation have been accused of showing favoritism or being unfair. Why "Probationary Members may be expelled by a vote of at least one third of the Leadership" ? This strikes me as a little prejudicial. I feel like new members should be given the benefit of the doubt, especially considering how few people would need to get together to gang up on someone with a third being the threshold. Why not majority with a tie being affirmative?

Comment: Vote 9 re: access to the mailing list. Since the beginning of the hive, the primary mailing list "cincihackerspace@googlegroups.com" has been an open, public list. I strongly feel that transparency is a goal the Hive should strive for. Having a public mailing list serves the goal of transparency. Why does Vote 9 exist? Access to the mailing list is available to the general public. Why does it need to be part of the membership addendum? Can someone in favor of this explain what the goal is because I don't get it.

Comment: Suspension procedure.  I think the heading on section 2 needs to be more descriptive.  I think this really should read: "Then the Leadership of the Corporation meets in order to vote on what to do."  1. You've defined "Leadership of the Corporation" - USE IT.  2. While it is IMPLIED that Leadership would need to meet in order to vote, being explicit about it here is more clear

Comment: Suspension procedure.  I really do not like "2e. The meeting may be closed.  Leadership may request the presence of anyone connected to the issue." Closed meetings are anti-transparency. I'm going to guess that the idea here would be to allow Leadership to discuss and make decisions without being hampered or distracted by members not a part of the leadership attending a suspension meeting. I really don't like the idea of outright closed meetings - I think this is counter how the space should operate. Alternatively, I would wholeheartedly support instead "Leadership may ask anyone present at a suspension meeting to leave in the event that they were being disruptive or interfering with proceedings." I think this gives Leadership the explicit right to remove people getting in the way of accomplishing goals while allowing interested parties to be involved as long as they do so in a constructive, respectful manner.

thanks,
-D

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Paul

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 9:52:28 AM9/28/16
to Hive13
Another comment, in the current language I can't seem to find a hard definition of what we mean be a 'Suspended Member', we might want to consider spelling it out explicitly in the membership addendum.

From what I have read we are implying that a suspended member loses all membership rights while they are suspended, further the Suspension Proposal protocol as currently outlined gives no opportunity for the suspended member to present a defense.  They are considered suspended as soon as two members of the leadership call for the suspension, and remain suspended up until they are actually removed.

If a member loses all rights, and we add the section that defines participation in the mailing list a right of regular membership, the defined suspension protocol does not give the suspended member an opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

I would propose a section outlining that the suspended member has a right to be at the special meeting for a period of time long enough for them to present their side of the story, then possibly requiring they leave before the official vote is performed.

Greg Arnold (COO)

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 8:56:08 PM9/28/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
I'll post another reply in response to points raised here (although a cursory glance suggests that all points raised here as of this reply are also comments in the document), but I want to elaborate on a comment I made in the document a little.

I think that we have to assume that Leadership has the best interests of the Hive at heart and structure the Bylaws keeping that in mind.  If at any point, we have Leadership that doesn't do so, Bad Things will happen.  I don't think it's possible to create Bylaws that prevent bad Leadership from botching the Hive, and any attempts would create a behemoth of a Bylaws document that no one will read or faithfully follow.  Leadership are elected to serve the Hive and be involved in the day-to-day operation, and as such are in the best position to know what is right for the Hive.  If the Membership feels that they are not doing so, they should remove them.

Greg Arnold (COO)

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 9:37:18 PM9/28/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
OK, addressing specific points here:

I clarified the language on Suspension/Expulsion:
  • The accused now explicitly has a right to be at the expulsion Special Meeting, with a provision for removal if the Membership feels that he is disrupting the meeting.
  • Made it clear that, yes, the Leadership will meet to have their vote.

I edited Vote 9 (Mailing List as a Right).  It had originally been numbered and written to flow with a slightly outdated copy of the Membership Addendum.  I also explained in the summary that this doesn't mean non-Members are no longer allowed access to the list.


I think that every other comment I've addressed as a reply to the comment on the document.


On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 3:07:48 PM UTC-4, Elly wrote:

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 9:47:41 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Greg;

I think that if we're assuming that the leadership has our best interests in heart, we're making a horrible assumption.  While I'm not saying that you, or any other member of our leadership, doesn't have our best interests in mind, assuming that the members here have blind loyalty to the board, or any other member of the hackerspace is borderline braggadocios.

With that said, I have serious issues with both the wording of the document as well as the tone that it puts in play.

Binding arbitration agreements are bad.  They place an unneeded administrative burden upon the member and give the organization an extra hurdle before taking legal action to resolve something.  They are great for organizations because they can keep the "dirty laundry" of the business private, and limit it to one person and the arbitration team.  

Making members pay for dues (ala probationary members) and then not afford them same voting rights as regular members doesn't feel like the open community that we've always pushed for.  

Closing the suspension meeting clearly goes against the tenants of community that we've had.  Saying that we can kick a person out for being disruptive is really just begging the hive to be sued -- no due process can occur when someone is being ejected for being disruptive.  If this was the case, any criminal or civil defendant could prolong the inevitable and just be a dick to the judge.  Judges and juries process through these situations, even with the disruptive defendant, and make their decisions based upon the facts.  

It's painfully obvious that this was not looked at by an attorney, nor was it drafted in consultation with an attorney.  Since these are important, *legal* documents that represent the hive, they need more thorough review than what we're giving them.  We seem to be moving backwards here...

When you have issues with a member, the Leadership needs to sit down and talk to that member, not draft up a series of policies and procedures to try to give the board and the officers the upper hand in dealing with that person.  This really seems akin to a target set of policies to deal with one or two problem members and could really shoehorn a heavy-handed leadership into pushing a member out.

Ian
  

--

Daniel McNamara

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 10:59:02 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com

Ian, Excellent wording.
This was brought up with a previous issue we had between two members, but the Hive could not afford to get into a legal tiff, I think at the time the subject was over a gender discrimination claim. We don't want a poorly written bylaws to also hurt us. 

My concerns with the sections (Some may have been brought up already): 

Vote 1: Where do we have official Corporation records?

Vote 2: Adding a section for Code of Conduct addendum with no Code of Conduct is a poor decision. This should not be added without  the Addendum to go with it. 

Vote 3: These are bylaws of the company, not a contract.They are two majorly different things. The Summary says any Dispute, this would only hold true for the Company and who the contract holds to, not two individual separate members.

Vote 4: Partnership Membership & Family memberships both need a lot clearer definition. 

A family membership for example can easily cover 10 people if they are polyamorous. (Person A is in a relationship with Person B, & Person C. Person B is in a Relationship with D & E Person C is in a relationship with F & G, then to define D-G's relationship. These would all fall under immediate family for significant others, therefor immediate family.

A Partnership can be any two friends currently. This would potentially drop our funding in half.

Vote 5 & 6: Both are poorly written. (I do like adding a way to vote out an officer or Board.)  

Vote 8: we need 1/3rd vote of leadership for a probationary member? I don't agree with this. For one, this as a company policy as a whole can easily be abused, for easy profits, an easy fix for that is to refund the membership if leadership decides to do this. 

Vote 9: Now this one is a nightmare. The mailing list is public, has always been, how would that change anything? Short Term suspensions can be 72 hours each week by 2 leadership for ANY reason?  So 3 days a week, for any reason.... Beyond discrimination being rampant for that, it can lead to favoritism; well the opposite or used as a threat.  A closed meeting for leadership, causes transparency issues, this goes against the maker/hackerspace mentality as a whole. Long term suspensions for 90 days, and have to pay, thats $150 for no access and no voting, so basically no membership. If it does go to a Quorom vote, we can't get them on the current changes to an addendum, what makes us think we can hit it for a suspension for "any reason"? 1/4 vote no removes? This should at least be a majority vote of membership. 

In my opinion we should off on the special meeting until we have a finalized thing to vote on. If we do Vote 2, 3, 4, 8, & 9 should be removed.

Elly Hall

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 11:18:44 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Just a quick reminder to everyone that these are NOT the final versions.This can be something easy to miss in the long original message.  However, as stated above, these are currently in "semi-working" order.  The point was to propose changes EARLY, have the open forum, have this open discussion, then coalesce those suggestions and ideas into a FINAL version to be OFFICIALLY proposed for that Special Meeting no later than 10 days before the Special meeting (which would mean they would be officially posted on October 1st).  So actually the entire point of this was to have a discussion BEFORE posting the official vote so we can have valuable input to change wording, strike things, add things, etc. to form an official proposal.

We also are trying to use connections and have a legal expert AND someone involved in nonprofits take a look at these.

Later I'll be able to post some responses and some of the "behind the scenes" reasoning for some of the proposed changes.  I'm pretty busy right now, so I unfortunately can't do that immediately.

Lastly, thanks for everyone's participation so far.  I love that we have so many members who are involved and concerned with things as "dry" as bylaws.  That shows just how community driven we are!

Please note: Above is not angry use of caps, it's just there for clarification, since some points seems to have been missed in the first email :)

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 11:25:32 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
I'm with Daniel.  I think that the timeline for these huge, important changes is way too fast and things need to be pushed back until the Is are dotted and Ts are crossed.  This stuff is too important to rush through it and these changes are severely half-baked.

I think the intention of the arbitration clauses was to de-escalate issues that may arise in the future so that mediation, arbitration become mandatory before members can sue each other.  As has been pointed out, the bylaws are for the CORPORATION to follow.  There is no automatic obligation for MEMBERS to follow the bylaws of a corporation by simply becoming members.  

I agree wholeheartedly with Ian that we really need an attorney to look over some of these changes.  None of us are familiar enough with the law as it applies to organizations to make something that is legally sound.  The arbitration issue is a perfect example of where this is needed.

-D



On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Daniel McNamara <dtm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 11:26:18 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the clarification Elly!  Much appreciated!
-D

Daniel McNamara

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 11:29:44 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com

Elly, This shouldn't be a connections for a lawyer to look at. This should be something we pay a professional to look at and give his/her full professional stamp of approval on. Legal advice can come at a high price for an attorney to give as a favor.

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 11:44:26 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Michael Mann who has his offices downtown is who worked through the liability release forms I have people sign for the dyno tuning work I do. It's high risk, delicate.  Did a great job.
Address30 Garfield Pl #920, Cincinnati, OH 45202

Daniel McNamara

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 11:48:57 PM9/28/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com

I just met him tonight at my town council meeting, he is running for judge, he may be willing to do it as a charitable donation.

Ian B

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 12:23:27 AM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com

Ok long email incoming,

I am burnt out on bylaws discussions but I am going to do my best to help out in explaining the "Mailing List as a Right" as it was largely my idea and I have been considering it, in one form or another, for over a year:

The topic of whether a member can be removed from the mailing list, either temporarily or permanently, has been brought up in the past under various circumstances. My opinion is that the right of members to have access to the mailing list is already implied in the bylaws by these two facts:

A. Discussing votes of the membership is a right of membership

B. The mailing list is the only communication method specifically mentioned in the bylaws for vote discussion.

However, it came to my attention that this interpretation is not necessarily shared by everyone. As such I decided that I would like this right spelled out explicitly rather than implicitly.

So, to clarify:

This will NOT remove non-members from the mailing list. This simply guarantees access to members, whereas non-members, as has always been the case, can be removed if they are being disruptive.

This will link mailing list access with physical access as a right. i.e. Removal of access to the mailing list cannot be considered unless removal from the physical space is also being considered.

This is not spelled out yet but I think it should be added: Access to the mailing list should be removed for suspended members IF and ONLY IF that suspension is as a result of mailing list behavior. It should NOT be an automatic reaction to any suspension (even if other membership rights are being removed) so that any suspended member can be involved in the discussion thereof. (Access to contact the leadership list will never be removed).

As CTO I pretty much have unrestricted control of the mailing list. I know that I am not going to abuse that ability, but that's no excuse for it being an option. My highest priority in my position is transparency and member rights. The goal here is to make silencing a voice, any voice, more difficult.

I welcome suggestions for improvement.

- Ian B.

Geez, I came over all political there for a minute didn't I? :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

Ian B

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 12:47:00 AM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
I have some thoughts on the other proposed changes, I just wanted the mailing list thing to be it's own email.

I believe the goal of the code of conduct thing is to add the wording into the bylaws to allow for its creation, then we can freely have a longer discussion on what it should actually contain. That being said, whis will effect whether or not quorum is required to change the code of conduct. I'm on the fence on this one but I'm leaning toward requiring quorum for changes.

I'm going to leave the discussion regarding "disputes" and "mediation" and whatnot to the people who know what the hell they are talking about.

I think that create a "Probationary Member" Tier is a good idea and serves to formalize a policy that was already sort of in place. That being said, I think the "one third of the leadership" threshold is too low. I suspect that it grows more out of the difficulty involved in getting all of the leadership together for a discussion, however I think Dave B is right that new members deserve the benefit of the doubt. A simple majority seems more fair.

I also dislike the wording in the "removal process" regarding "closed meetings". We have always been a transparent and member driver organization and if anyone feels strongly enough about the issue to show up at the meeting they should be allowed to present their opinion (so long as they are willing to do so in a civil manner).

Ian B.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

Elly Hall

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 8:28:34 AM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Very short response before I head to work.

The "closed meeting" in the removal process was solely intended to protect the people/parties involved.  Not everyone wants their disputes to be 100% public (because that is what they would be if it was an open meeting).  The "accuser"or the victimized party, may feel extremely uncomfortable, to the point of NOT showing up/giving their case at all, if anyone were able to be there to hear what happened and what they are reporting.  Some situations could be VERY sensitive.  This was NEVER meant to be anti-transparency, or provide leadership with an "upperhand", but I can see how it is written that it could be read that way.  

In order to get that point through in the bylaws, maybe it should be reworded to something like "The meetings may be closed only at the express request of any parties involved, however leadership may request any/all parties involved to attend." or something to that effect.

Tim

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 9:29:38 AM9/29/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
I'm leaning a bit towards Elly on the closed/open debate, albeit I agree with some of the counterpoints brought up. If this were a matter of someone being a problem to the Hive as a whole, i.e., destruction/theft of Hive property, etc., then by all means it should be open. If, however, it is a matter of the accused having done something to another member of the Hive, such as a severe code of conduct violation, inappropriate behavior, etc., it could be hard or intimidating for them to present their case when who they are accusing is sitting right across from them or they might feel too embarrassed to have the whole Hive know every little detail of what happened.

Recognizing that this is a rough draft proposal, it looks like this proposed changes needs some elaboration, where there are a list of different cases where a completely open meeting may be reconsidered for having something private for delicate issues that may arise. For example, early on in the process, the accuser can bring an issue to leadership privately, then when leadership decides on the validity and applicability of the problem, open meetings and whatnot can move forward, with the accuser claiming some form of anonymity if deemed necessary (whether or not the accused and accuser should be required 100% of the time to meet face to face is an issue I'll let you all discuss).

As far as the accused being barred from meetings, I do agree that he should be able to attend relevant meetings in order to hear what is being brought against him and give a chance to defend himself (whether to give his side of the story, provide an alibi, clear up a misunderstanding, etc.). To be ejected from the meeting, he/she would have to be disruptive to the proceedings that would be the case during any regular meeting, although are the criteria for that defined anywhere?

To be clear, maybe I'm not considering every possibility or comprehending core tenants of the makerspace philosophy, so I welcome any counterpoints, I just so far think that some issues that would warrant expulsion might require some degree of discretion. How much and what degree is something the Hive as a whole needs to agree to.

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 12:30:33 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Elly, thanks for the explanation.  In the case of bullying, I could totally see how a victim might be uncomfortable or intimidated by having to face their tormentors at the same time as the Leadership.  This is something that I think is worthy of consideration, but not at the expense of transparency.

A compromise that I would be willing to go for:
-A victim/complainant may request a closed hearing to present their case
-Any such hearing would be a closed meeting in which only the leadership would be present and any unexpected attendees would be asked to leave.
-Any such meeting would be RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED IN FULL.  In the event that this could not be done due to technical or logistical issues, the meeting would be rescheduled for a time when facilities were available.
-When the issue is considered to be resolved by Leadership, any transcripts and recordings submitted in closed hearings would be unsealed and made available to MEMBERS only (not general public).

I feel that this gives a balance between protecting legitimate victims from further abuse and maintaining transparency in the overall decision making process.

Thoughts?
-D

--

Tim

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 12:40:52 PM9/29/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
I could get behind this sort of procedure, in addition to any refinements others may suggest.

Do we need any sort of clause on how to handle things if the accused IS a member of the Leadership, or will the proposed addition be sufficient to imply that an accused party who is also in Leadership will not be allowed in the private introductory hearing?

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 12:50:33 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
I think that if a member ever brought a grievance against a member of Leadership, it would only be proper for the accused Leadership member to recuse themselves from discussion and deliberation.  While I consider this to be a no-brainer, does it need to be formalized?

-D

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Tim <busyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I could get behind this sort of procedure, in addition to any refinements others may suggest.

Do we need any sort of clause on how to handle things if the accused IS a member of the Leadership, or will the proposed addition be sufficient to imply that an accused party who is also in Leadership will not be allowed in the private introductory hearing?

--

Ian B

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 1:15:16 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com

There is already a "Conflict of Interest" section in the bylaws, however it specifically refers only to board members. This could be modified to include all Leadership (perhaps as part of Vote 5?).

After reading Elly's explanation I am now leaning the other way on the Closed Meeting issue. But I definitely think the wording needs to be modified to make the intention clear.

Ian B.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 2:15:21 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
The negative implications of closing a meeting are clear: to avoid the members of the organization.

JFK reminds us that, “The very word, secrecy, is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”

No matter how controversial or sensitive the subject, closed meetings go against the open-ness of the spirit and velocity of the hive.

Ian

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 2:21:49 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Ian Wilson, I 100% agree with you.  

I also see that in the case of bullying, openness may be a barrier to dealing with the problem.  I think that my proposal of allowing closed meetings which later become public(to membership) allows the openness to eventually happen while providing temporary sanctuary in delicate cases long enough for them to be resolved.

Thoughts?
-D

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 2:52:26 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
In situations where there is bullying or harassment, we should consider a methodology that sudoroom uses:


The meetings are open, there's a well defined process for dealing with them that ensures that those who are harassed have an advocate that fight for them and represent their best interests, and there's a well defined process for dealing with the conflict.

The last line in their statement says the most to me -- 

"Restorative remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies."

Just as we are open, we are also educational -- instead of being retributive, let's be restorative and teach members where their actions are causing issues for other members.  Restorative first, retributive next -- if the member still doesn't understand and deviates off of the path of getting their behavioral needs addresses, then we look at alternative means of addressing the safety of our membership (suspension, restriction to open events only, etc).

Ian

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 3:04:59 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Ian, do you have any contacts at sudoroom that may be able to speak about an actual use of this conflict resolution strategy?

Why reinvent the wheel?  Seems pretty thought-out to me.  Maybe not take verbatim but certainly worthy of serious consideration.

-D

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 3:48:49 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Actually, I do know someone who was one of the founders at sudoroom;  she's in Indiana now and I might be able to convince her to swing down to hive13 and chat if I can find her on irc.

Absent that, I am actually in the SFBay area this week and might swing by there tonight for their Javascript Users group and see if I can, at the very least, get some contact information for the folks who authored their Articles and go from there.

Ian

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 4:25:22 PM9/29/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Personally, I'm almost more interested to talk to someone who has used or been a part of their issue resolution procedure to get a firsthand perspective on what worked well or didn't, etc.  On paper, it looks great.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it works effectively.
-D

Andrew

unread,
Sep 29, 2016, 10:23:33 PM9/29/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
I understand Ian's point about closed meetings not being transparent, but I don't see the issue in quite the same way.  I understand that transparency is important, but I'm a firm believer in praise in public, punish in private. 

If there's a hearing, and the "guilty" party was exonerated, do we really want to discuss the accusation?  Do they really need that cloud hanging over their head? 

If they are not, and they're expelled, then do we really need to discuss their crime, whatever it may be?  Do we really want that sitting in the wiki for all to see?  What sort of impression does that information make on new members?

Anyway, I think some privacy and lack of discussion of sensitive matters might be the better approach.  OTOH, people are likely going to gossip, so word with get around.  Further if leadership goes bad, the hive is in a world of hurt anyway.

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 12:30:21 AM9/30/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
Andrew;

One of the beautiful things about the hive is that we've always been an open organization;  the good decisions are made in public, and the difficult decisions are made in public.  That openness, along with the basic tenant of "Let's be awesome and build great things together" are one of the driving reasons why I continue to support the hive even though I'm rarely in Cincinnati anymore.

The hive is small enough that even the most basic thing is spread like wildfire;  IRC happens.  People communicate via side channels.  

When the last "major" event happened at the hive, we were open and transparent about it, and open and transparent about dealing with that issue throughout the process until it was resolved.  Nothing happened in secret, and while board members and the leadership had private communication with each other during that time, we acted in public, and we were unified in getting that issue resolved.

As for the reflections upon new members, I tend to look at it the same way I look at reviews online:  If there are no negative reviews, then there's something amiss.  Even with the proposal that they have, all of the negative actions would be reported on the wiki regardless.  

The hive is a great group, and we are a great group because we work through issues together.  Closing meetings, regardless of the reason, seems to go completely against this philosophy. 

Ian

--

Andrew

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 10:17:27 AM9/30/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
Ian,
  You're probably correct about things getting out, and at that point I'm not see much advantage to closed meetings.

Andrew

Lorin Parker

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 10:20:38 AM9/30/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
As Elly states we need some procedures for privacy in place. It is a common provision of mediation, and allows people to request privacy for sensitive issues. This would, theoretically, help reduce reduce drama and escalation. 

I can't remember if it's in there at the moment, but having a couple non-leadership members may join or sit in such proceedings can provide check and balance. 

Think about it, though, in case of very personal matters would you want minutes posted on a wiki? Social media posts could happen as commentary by non involved parties as well. 

It's about respecting a member's right to privacy should they want privacy, not about granting power to leadership. 

Lorin


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

Dave B.

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 10:54:53 AM9/30/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
There is no right to privacy in public places.

There is no right to privacy in the criminal justice system.  While cases can get sealed to protect CIs or victims, interested parties can still make a trip to the clerk of court to get access to files.  They may no longer be a few clicks away on the web easy access but they're not shielded from public view.

Point: outside the hive, we do not have a universal expectation of privacy, especially in the realm of disputes requiring formal assistance in resolution. (i.e. the law)  There is no expectation of privacy in public areas, such as on the street or in public parks.  Privacy is something that exists in small doses.

Privacy limits access to information but does not prevent it.  I have zero problems with proceedings of Leadership being kept private from the general public, i.e. not discussed on mailing list or wiki.  I have every issue with Leadership being able to operate without oversight from the membership at large.  There is no way I can support any proposal in which MEMBERS OF THE HIVE lack full access to the proceedings of any meetings conducted by the leadership, either by being allowed to attend said meetings as a bystander or by transcripts/recordings being made available in a manner where only members have access to them. (stored at space?)  I'm fine with meetings being able to happen privately to resolve an issue but when it has been resolved, all decision making by leadership should be transparent TO MEMBERS.  The Freedom of Information Act is reasonably close to what I'm talking about - a way for interested parties to obtain information after it is no longer a threat to national security.  Redaction?  My gut feeling would be NOT to support that in this context, but... I'd consider a well-crafted proposal tht includes it.

What I would not consider in any shape or form is a proposal that allowed the basis for decisions made by Leadership to remain permanently secret to Membership.  I feel strongly enough about this that I think I would terminate my membership over any such secret proceedings becoming a part of the bylaws.

-Dave

Paul

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 10:56:16 AM9/30/16
to Hive13
I also want to bring this back to the whole suspension process.  It was not until I was explaining it to someone else that I was able to come up with a simple explanation for why I have such problems with it. As the proposal is written at this time, the leadership can do the following:
  1. Immediately suspend a membership with only 2 people on the membership team voting to suspend
  2. That suspension becomes a 'Long term' suspension after a secret, closed door meeting of just the leadership.  Long term suspension is up to 90 days.
  3. While a member is suspended: They can't come to the space, they potentially can be banned from the mailing list, and they are required to keep paying dues each month.
  4. This means that suspension amounts to a $150 fine after you piss off 2 people, and those 2 people convince the other leaders that you should be suspended for 90 days without you able to defend yourself.
  5. If you decide to stick it out for those 90 days, and pay your $150 fine, you still have no right to defend yourself until the 'special meeting' where a vote will be held to kick you out.
  6. That special meeting's quorum to remove a person is half the membership (30 people), and it only takes a 1/4 of quorum vote to kick a member out (8 people), oh, and the leadership IS 8 positions (which could be 8 people).
  7. So, leadership can vote to suspend someone, wait 90 days forcing them to pay $150, and if you have the minimum of quorum (we are frequently close to quorum on big votes), leadership alone can kick out a member.

Next, if you decide to drop your membership during the 90 days instead of paying the forced $150 "membership", when you sign back up you are a "Probationary" member.  A probationary member's membership can be immediately terminated by a 1/3 vote of the leadership.  The same leadership which would have voted to suspend your membership in the first place.

Possible proposals to fix some of these potential loopholes and issues:

  1. No membership dues while a member is suspended.
  2. The accused should have some right to present their defense in advance of the special meeting, giving everyone time to review and consider their options in addition to being allowed at the meeting.
  3. 1/4 of Quorum is too low of a threshold and is ripe for abuse. The current threshold in the bylaws is admittedly probably too high (3/4 of all members, or in other words using our current membership total, that would be about 45 yes votes).  This proposed change is dropping that for a minimum of 3/4 of all members to 1/4 of quorum, or in other terms, a minimum of 1/8 of all members (about 8 people).
  4. Bylaw section 13 should be extended to include 'Leadership' in the conflict of interest section.
  5. We need to update the definition of a 'Suspended Membership' (section 2.5) which currently states that you can only be suspended due to non-payment of dues.

I am not trying to be difficult, I am just trying to think of how these rules can be abused.  I feel like there is a sentiment of "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" which is not the right want to write rules which will govern you.

I am not sure what the rush is in trying to get these changes approved.  I would support us finalizing these changes before scheduling the date of the special meeting to approve them.

Tim

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 11:25:07 AM9/30/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
Looking back and thinking about it some more, while it may sound bad that you ticked off 8 people, if what a person has done is so egregious as to warrant expulsion, the people voting to remove should have no problem bringing enough evidence to convince enough other people that expulsion is warranted.

With that said, those 8 people would most likely be among those who are the most active in the space anyway, so maybe something a little more in depth than Pass/Fail? Maybe that's covered elsewhere.

I'm also starting to wonder if a clause concerning closed doors or private hearings belongs in this section as a single subpoint line item. Should there be a little more fleshed out procedure inserted elsewhere in the bylaws talking about how grievances are brought up and how they are addressed? At first I was completely on the side of respecting individual privacy, and I still am, but I can relent to the point that was brought up, that it's not right to have a potentially extreme case where the leadership outright kicks someone out (which VERY rarely happens) and can only respond with "we can't tell you why, he/she was just a really bad person". To go in line with the criminal justice system analogy, for the group to make an informed vote on something as serious as this, they need to be provided with the sequence of events as they happened, but I'm still going to lean on the side of discretion in saying that identifying information of a victim that does not want to be identified can be redacted or withheld IF sufficient criteria is met. We're talking really deep stuff, not "oh, he stole my screwdriver but I don't want to be identified because of how petty I'm being." I could also consent to the information being available to the members and not the general public, i.e., physical records and files at the space and nothing on the wiki, mailing list, etc., with safeguards or penalties in place if someone released them to the public.

I can consent to having the dues suspended. Either you get kicked out of the space, at which point you've already been gone, or you are brought back in, at which point you are a potentially innocent person who has been wrongfully accused and had their time wasted. It's one of those areas where, yeah, in a way you could find a way to justify it, but it might be better off just putting the subscription on hold until the person is reinstated.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 2:47:06 PM9/30/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
A contract needs to be unilateral -- both sides need to see the benefit -- in order for it to pass even a standard "sniff test."

In the situation of a suspension, if the member does not have access to the space, the space should not benefit by way of their dues.

Even Lionel Hutz could make that case...

With regards to the change in quorum, there's legal precedent that applies here:

"[...] does not authorize the Board to create a tail that would not only wag the dog, but would continue to wag after the dog died." (NEW PROCESS STEEL, L. P. v. NLRB ( No. 08-1457 ) 564 F. 3d 840, reversed and remanded.) [and you say that lawyers don't have a sense of humor!]

Simply put, Leadership cannot make changes to define quorum that makes it easier for Leadership to obtain quorum.  

Ian

Ian Wilson

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 6:19:10 PM9/30/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
I've discussed a lot of things here, and instead of just blindly bitching about them, I'm going to try to make them better and more palatable to me.

I am going to break down the major issues into github pull requests, and then I will make a pdfdiff of the latex files, so that everyone can see the proposed changes and how they relate to the actual documents and go from there, and post the diff, the pdfdiff, and why those changes are important to the mailing list on an item-by-item level.  There's a lot of good discussion and a lot of good information that's out there, and I think that we can look at the changes on an individual basis so that there's no clutter between the two.  

(I do like Google's Comments feature -- so, if you have a github account, feel free to do code review comments for things;  if you don't have a github account, feel free to make and change your comments here).

I will modify the Suspension ones into a seperate uid0-suspension-wording branch on github;  I will post my thoughts/revisions to this on the mailing list and we can go from there.

Ian


Lorin Edwin Parker

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 8:24:02 PM9/30/16
to Hive13
Okay, I was advocating privacy in mediation, and a preference to "work things out" prior to any serious action. Anything salient should be on record should it proceed to serious action. 

I'll shut up now lest I be misinterpreted.  

Elly Hall

unread,
Oct 1, 2016, 5:25:27 PM10/1/16
to cincihac...@googlegroups.com
We interrupt your program to bring you this important message: Please see the new email about postponement of the Special Meeting.  Commence discussion.

Andrew

unread,
Oct 1, 2016, 7:27:28 PM10/1/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
Would it be possible to add a limitation to the family plan?  6 seems like a reasonable number, and effectively works out to slightly better than if everybody on the family plan came in at the $13.37 student special.

mhorn...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2016, 5:45:37 PM10/20/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace
I don't know that particular system... but I was on the safety committee in one way or another for a caving club for 13 or so years. About 150 people at meetings the beginning of the year, Roberts Rules, etc. We addressed issues major and minor with a "reprimand" which was simply discussing it and entering that to minutes. For years, the common ethos, and peer pressure of high expectations worked. Then, well... then we had a problem. A person who refused to follow the safety guidelines and procedures, multiple near misses, one injury requiring hospitalization, and consistent poor judgement. The bylaws and procedures were not up to snuff, nor were they deemed sufficient by the parent university... and we suffered. Activity plummeted, people quit, and everything revolved endlessly around the conflict. Eventually, it was discovered that the individual in question was not really supposed to be on university property anyway, some lingering issues with assaulting his boss while an employee. And the constitution and by law revision ran on, and on. If I recall, we kept the formalized procedure for censure, which involved a discussion of the events without the accused present, then discussion of what was said stripped of names, essentially the bullet points of the issue. Then the vote, by ballot, then the results according to the bylaws.

So... bullet proof procedure. What could go wrong? The system is only as good as the officers running it, and the ethos of the group. The organization stopped it's focus on continuous improvement through accident review, and instead focused on recruiting at all costs. Guess what? Because discussions of accidents and conflict resolution is unpleasant, it did not get done. The drift of focus came full circle... After 13 years of being an officer, a trainer, and a member of said organization, the then President refused to recognize me to speak at meetings. Needless to say, I was gonna get what I had to say out of my system. I walked to the front of the room, hand raised... and insisted on my right to make a motion. I motioned that the club review and modify the constitution and bylaws, because they had lost all focus and agreement on what they meant. Motion was not seconded for a long time. One fellow. Just one fellow that was upset for other reasons (relationships) seconded just to cause trouble. Motion carried... I walked out, clear conscious if still troubled, never to return, having made the point.

Basically, there is safety... and then there is social... as long as people have a clear idea of the ethics and goals, and insist on meeting them, then things should be okay. Okay, so there are bumps in the road. Any organization needs to be able to discipline or expel those who are totally disruptive. The question is how, why, and what is fair. I can tell you... leaving the meeting sucks. Been there. Each time there was an accident or mishap, I took my turn outside if needed. Right now I have scouts... and we've had conflicts, and people with no experience at all with conflict resolution. Hearing the procedure cold? Not good. Any person facing a discipline action needs to hear and understand the procedure, and know the applicable bylaws involved.

That being said... I'd layer it. Minor stuff? Reported to warden, mentioned next minutes... acquire 3 in a month next step (or similar) move to next step. Major stuff? Requiring work stop or immediate warden intervention? Perhaps a sceduled meeting with the wardens and the officers, results posted in minutes. "An issue was addressed, no more grinding next to piles of sawdust!" Or the like. Crack down on repeat violations... It'll take a lot of work and effort regardless. If it helps, I can chat about it anytime.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hive13 Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cincihackerspa...@googlegroups.com.

Andrew

unread,
Oct 20, 2016, 6:46:10 PM10/20/16
to Hive13 Hackerspace

Basically, there is safety... and then there is social... as long as people have a clear idea of the ethics and goals, and insist on meeting them, then things should be okay. Okay, so there are bumps in the road. Any organization needs to be able to discipline or expel those who are totally disruptive.

Well said.  I agree, and all the people I've met at the hive have been decent to me.  OTOH, I also understand why we have police, to deal with those 1% who for whatever reason can't or won't be civil.  I think it's good we're moving forward with some sensible rules and adding the ability to deal with disruptive individuals before they become the focus, rather than making stuff.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages