Bylaws Proposal: Card Holder Requirement for Board Nominee

[Moheeb Zara]

This is pretty self explanatory, should this proposal pass I don't require it to be retroactive. Brett as an example doesn't have card access (last i checked anyway )but is doing a great job and it helps that they've been sort of pre-vetted for us by being a CrashSpace (practically a sister space to HSL) alum :P 

I suggest the card holder requirement (except in the rare case there are no cardholders at all [which would be a bigger problem] or any that are able and willing) because card access comes with earning community trust, being championed, and then voted in by members. It tells us that person understands the culture and values of the space and has been around long enough to know the lay of the land and is someone we can trust to represent the space. Someone we trust will be welcoming, courteous, and exemplify the spirit of do-ocracy and a radical inclusivity. 

Thats not to say those without card access are any less capable, just that it would make sense that a board member go through at least the same vetting process for members we trust to keep the doors open. Also a board member who can't open the doors in an emergency is severely hindered in their fiduciary duty.

To be honest I had already thought this was a thing until the last election. 

So the change to bylaws would simply be: "Elgibility to be nominated for the board carries the singular requirement that you be amongst the living (optionally we can include a clause barring werewolves, vampires, and zombies from elgibility), a member in good standing, and an active cardholder. In the event an active cardholder is unable to be found the board seat remains empty until someone can be elected or appointed at a later time. However, the remaining card-holding board members may choose to allow that seat to be filled by a non-card holding member(s) (confirmed by special election of a quorum of cardholders) in good standing at their discretion after the annual election. "

[Antonio Contrisciani]

I support this.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/29c5bdc9-8453-4375-911d-15203c570574n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jay McGavren]

I support this but would suggest a revision to the proposed text:

"Eligibility to be nominated for the board requires that you be a member in good standing..." [Remainder unchanged.] I recommend striking "singular" because there are actually multiple requirements. I recommend striking "amongst the living" and all mention of the supernatural because there's a time and place for goofiness and I think the bylaws aren't it. 😁

-Jay

[James F Kehoe]

I haven't been around long, but do we really need to put more barriers in place for the board?  Is there some history that motivates the additional requirement? 

[Moheeb Zara]

I think its important that a board member be someone with card access for logistical reasons and because I think its a good vetting process for who we can trust to be a custodian of the space. 

[Nate Caine]

Perhaps Jay's suggestion should be extended to include "member in good standing for at least the one year before taking office".

We've had past and recent cases where new members were fast-tracked to the board, and a lack of history with HeatSync has impeded their effectiveness.

[Eric Ose]

Moheeb,

You need to show what is going to be added to rules, or bylaws. This is worded in a lengthy way which is fine for explaining things. We still need clarity on which bylaws or rules are going to be changed with specific wording. 

This is something that does need changed. There are some other things that need fixed. Becoming a board member should not be easier than becoming a cardholder.

I don't think we need it to be harder than cardholder status, but Nate and perhaps other people may have different ideas on that.

Eric Ose

Robot Ambassador

It's just an idea until there's a date and time included.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/44c0a744-60db-483e-b598-94fa5b404a3cn%40googlegroups.com.

[David Lang]

James F Kehoe wrote:

> I haven't been around long, but do we really need to put more barriers in
> place for the board? Is there some history that motivates the additional
> requirement?

Two of the current board members are not card holders (Me and Brett)

There are people who very much dislike some opinions we have. I have been
threatened and ordered to resign my some individual members. People organized
efforts to remove me from the board (some public, some not public).

there are fewer listed requirements for board membership, but it takes more
votes to be elected to the board than to get car holder status.

In this last election, the only position that had more than one candidate was
Champion (3 people for 2 positions).

I agree it's harder to be a board member without having card holder status, and
It's not an unreasonable thing to consider. But I think the reason it's being
brought up now is because of the desire to eliminate me from the board or
prevent someone like me from being elected in the future.

We need to have more people voting, and not have as much tension. We are all
here to make things, what we (legally) do outside of the lab should not matter.
Your politics, religion, sexual orientation, etc should not matter (as long as
you aren't pushing any of the above on others in the lab)

There is also a disagreement between people who think that the board should be
actively working to improve the lab and those who think that it would be better
if the board wasn't even in the same state, and only met once a year to sign tax
documents. Everyone currently on the board (cardholder or not) is in the 'active
board' camp.

David Lang

>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/29c5bdc9-8453-4375-911d-15203c570574n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>
>

[Moheeb Zara]

I prefaced this with I have no issue with Brett (who doesn't have card access ( yet <3 ) and is a board member) and that I dont believe the passing of this proposal should be retroactive (meaning board members without card access would not be removed should this pass). As I stated my concern comes from immediately following the election finding out that it wasn't a requirement. It appears to be an oversight. I am inclined to agree with Nate's perspective that it should be a year, but I have to also recognize that Eric Ose became a board member after 6 months at the lab and it was a great benefit to us all because he understood our radically inclusive culture. Since we already had a long debate about 6mo vs 2mo for card access during the proposal by Luis for that, I have leaned on simply accepting card access as the gate to board membership. Card access is something one gets from more than just the vote, but by proving their ability to represent the space and its values and someone feeling inclined to propose they have access. Its a standard vetting process that has been adopted by hackerspaces around the world. 

As many have likely observed I am firmly against changing the bylaws from what they were in 2012, my recent suggestions have been only because I had thought these were already part of the bylaws but they may have just been customs I assumed we all followed. Recent years have proven some things may need to be codified since there hasn't been a consistent transfer of oral tradition. 

Your reply seems to imply that I would maneuver to remove a board member simply over disagreement, which isnt true (I've supported board members I vehemently disagreed with on lab policy, hell i've served on the board with people i disagreed with [I still love you Chadtech and I hope you are well]) except in the edge case of someone holding values that are counter to our mission of radical inclusivity (such as racism, homophobia, transphobia, any discrimination of marginalized protected classes, or someone supportive of state sanctioned brutality and murder) which I've been consistently vocal about for my 16 year tenure at the lab (which are human rights, dignity and policy issues. Not politically driven as those with a deficiency in critical thinking might characterize them)

[Moheeb Zara]

I think I've also been consistent that its a great disservice to us all to have removed the  no werewolves, vampires, and zombies clause from the bylaws. I'm telling ya'll, its a matter of time and with our late night hours we would never know until its too late. 

[David Lang]

Moheeb Zara wrote:

> Your reply seems to imply that I would maneuver to remove a board member
> simply over disagreement

I very carefully did not name any names.

> which isnt true (I've supported board members I
> vehemently disagreed with on lab policy, hell i've served on the board with
> people i disagreed with [I still love you Chadtech and I hope you are
> well]) except in the edge case of someone holding values that are counter
> to our mission of radical inclusivity (such as racism, homophobia,
> transphobia, any discrimination of marginalized protected classes, or
> someone supportive of state sanctioned brutality and murder)

I am against all the things you listed, but have different definitions for them
than you do (remember, there are advocates claiming that if you aren't willing
to have sex with a trans person, that means you are transphobic (while also
saying that no physical changes are needed, just a verbal claim), I hope that we
can all agree with saying that this is not a valid definition)

It's in these definitions that religion and politics and just differences in
judgement get involved.

David Lang

[David Lang]

Moheeb Zara wrote:

> I think I've also been consistent that its a great disservice to us all to
> have removed the no werewolves, vampires, and zombies clause from the
> bylaws. I'm telling ya'll, its a matter of time and with our late night
> hours we would never know until its too late.

how dare you be Lupophobic, Sanguivoriphobic and Kinemortophobic

depending on which fiction is right about them, they could be no threat at all,
and surely there is room for individual variation rather than condemming them as
a group because of an immutable characteristic.

:-)

David Lang

[Moheeb Zara]

I’m not interested in adjudicating edge case hypotheticals or debating the outer philosophical boundaries of terms like racism or transphobia.

This isn’t about winning a definitional argument. It’s about impact and trust. When a board member’s public statements are experienced by trans members, Muslim members, immigrants, or other marginalized folks as hostile or delegitimizing, that directly affects whether they feel safe, welcome, and represented in the space.

Reasonable people can disagree on politics, religion, and even on where lines are drawn in abstract theory. But serving on the board isn’t an abstract exercise. It’s a position of stewardship over a community that explicitly commits to radical inclusivity. That carries a higher bar for how one speaks publicly, because leadership speech shapes who feels this is “their” space. So the concern isn’t “you used the wrong dictionary definition.” It’s whether the pattern and tone of public statements, taken as a whole, align with the level of care, restraint, and inclusivity we expect from those entrusted with representing the lab.

That’s the frame I’m trying to keep this in,  the practical question of community safety, trust, and what it means to hold "power" in an organization that promises to be welcoming to people who are routinely targeted elsewhere.

[David Lang]

If someone is *phobic/*ist, we will see it in their interactions with others in
the lab, not need to go hunting down their past social media posts.

what matters is how people behave, not what other people think they think or
what their motives are.

David Lang

[Moheeb Zara]

I would expect that if a board member of a radically inclusive anarcho-communist hackerspace were publicly posting racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or Islamophobic material, the membership would take issue with it. Holding those views means that person is prejudiced, consciously or unconsciously, and it would affect their interactions and create a hostile environment for the groups they target. It would not matter whether those statements were made at the lab or elsewhere.

How a board member speaks about protected classes in public reflects on the lab, its reputation, and whether people feel safe there.

That said, this thread is about a proposal to require card access for board members going forward. Let’s keep the discussion focused on that.

[Brett Neese]

Back on topic.

> We've had past and recent cases where new members were fast-tracked to the board, and a lack of history with HeatSync has impeded their effectiveness.

I wonder how much of this is an issue with documentation, process, or lack of a proper handover process vs mere tenure. I’m not convinced that having a year of experience would’ve made me much better at the job I’m doing. And in fact, more tenured members of the lab outright refused to assist in knowledge transfer to the new board, particularly Operations, which is partly why we’ve seen our operations lead churn. No amount of changing the bylaws will solve for the hostility the new board has faced in addition to the job being difficult enough as is.

I’m also not convinced that having a card or not hinders all board seats equally, there’s been times where having it would’ve been nice, I would like to get in the door earlier to prep for HYH but that’s not strictly required to excel in the role.

I’m actually not against this proposal and can make a case for it, but I wonder if the problems it attempts to solve might be solved in other ways. It seems the electoral process itself might be the best solution; if there are people are running for the board who don’t have card access, that’s something that ideally would come up as something to consider during the election rather than making it a hard requirement. It some cases that might be better than leaving the seat open (I realize Moheeb’s proposal has a clause for this.)

Brett

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/os39os79-ron6-06p9-qq36-0102qonp4r6q%40ynat.uz.

[Luis Montes]

This is not at all what happened.  A large group of us don't like the idea of the board vetoing what passes during an HYH vote.  Yes there are edge cases when the board is unable to execute what passed during HYH, but that is not at all what the discussion was about.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/2n88n0rr-s81n-6r16-q966-1864711889p1%40ynat.uz.