It'll be an interesting meeting.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> The Meek STV voting method with a "no further places" candidate
must be used.
To something along the lines of
> The Meek STV voting method with a "no further places" candidate
must be used. To be eligible for election, at least a candidate must be ranked above "no further places" by a simple majority of voters.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
--
--
Hi Sara,I think it's worth noting again, as people are missing it, that the motion was to remove Dean as a member, not a trustee and was started before he became a trustee, since the election concluded it has been amended to also remove him as a trustee as this has changed since the first motion was started.
Was this ever aired on the mailing list? I don't recall seeing it.
Also, if Dean's behaviour is so bad, why haven't people making complaints leading to a ban by the trustees? Are the usual methods inadequate, or is there something I'm missing here?
* I think this is a simple majority but it may not be and I can't find specific reference in the constitution.
[1] https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Warnings_Issued
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:04 AM, SamLR <sam.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:* I think this is a simple majority but it may not be and I can't find specific reference in the constitution.
[1] https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Grievance_Procedure/Warnings_IssuedFrom following the conversation, I think that removing a member (as was suggested when the EGM was proposed) would require first a 75% vote to change the constitution to allow the action, followed by whatever vote was then required to make it happen.
Removing a trustee (which appears to be what the motion has mutated into, post-election) may have a lower threshold since I believe it doesn't require a constitutional change.Those people wanting to remove members wold be better off doing it through the existing mechanism of warnings. Such warnings would only be administered by the trustees if found to be valid.
--
>it makes his election into the grievance process problematic in my view.I'm curious. Is there any special system for grievance process if a trustee is involved? Does it simply get treated as a vote by 8 trustees? Or do they vote as well.If we don't have any mechanism for that should such a mechanism be added?
As such it's a real pity a bunch of people decided to try to push him out before this inevitability could come to pass.Dean can be an ass on the mailing list but I was looking forward to seeing the equivalent of that south park episode where Cartman keeps criticizing the class president until he gets given the job and gets angry because someone starts doing the same thing to him and he realizes he has no power.
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Dances_with_Smurfs/Script
It would only be a matter of time before someone else started accusing Dean of being part of a shadowy conspiracy and he discovered that trustees don't have much in the way of actual power.
Power can be a matter of perception. How many issues have we had where people have claimed "a trustee told me I could"?
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 12:49:18 UTC, Mark Steward wrote:Power can be a matter of perception. How many issues have we had where people have claimed "a trustee told me I could"?There have been some though.
What I don't understand is what Dean has done which isn't covered by the grievance procedure. What is meant by "controlling the workshop"? If it's abuse of storage requests, other people's stuff stored there or abuse of the machines or people, then those are all covered. I can't think of anything else off hand.
With the EGM, it appears I'm being asked to vote, but I don't feel I have any real details on what I'm meant to be voting on.
So far, what I've heard is a lot of back and forth on the mailing list which is hard to follow, vague threats that important people will leave if Dean isn't removed (no details of who[*]) and claims that it can't be done by the grievance procedure.
Kind of light on details for someone who hasn't been in recently and doesn't use the IRC channel.
There's also the point that the existence of the motion to be implies either something is wrong with the grievance procedure, or something is wrong with the motion.
Can anyone shed any light on what is wrong with the procedure? Someone mentioned lack of direct evidence, but as far as I can see surely the same applies to us voters who aren't in the know.
[*] there's nothing wrong with threatening to leave: I've done that in a different organisation. However it only works if one knows who and why. Otherwise it's just yet another insinuation.
Well, apparently there's still the motion going on, but I feel very much in the dark.
What I don't understand is what Dean has done which isn't covered by the grievance procedure. What is meant by "controlling the workshop"? If it's abuse of storage requests, other people's stuff stored there or abuse of the machines or people, then those are all covered. I can't think of anything else off hand.
With the EGM, it appears I'm being asked to vote, but I don't feel I have any real details on what I'm meant to be voting on.
So far, what I've heard is a lot of back and forth on the mailing list which is hard to follow, vague threats that important people will leave if Dean isn't removed (no details of who[*]) and claims that it can't be done by the grievance procedure.
There's also the point that the existence of the motion to be implies either something is wrong with the grievance procedure, or something is wrong with the motion.
Can anyone shed any light on what is wrong with the procedure? Someone mentioned lack of direct evidence, but as far as I can see surely the same applies to us voters who aren't in the know.
[*] there's nothing wrong with threatening to leave: I've done that in a different organisation. However it only works if one knows who and why. Otherwise it's just yet another insinuation.
I make sure to make it very clear when answering questions these days, usually going "personally I think [X] is [Y/N] but that's just me personally not as a trustee, other members might not agree" but this still has resulted in "Charles said it was ok, he is a trustee"
> <mailto:london-hack-space+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.
While this is a problem of behaviour that needs addressing, it's a little off-topic and deserves a separate thread.
The question occurred to me this morning, If Dean has been such a problem, then why hasn't anyone started the formal grievance procedure?
After all, we already have a method for getting members to alter their behaviour, before going for an outright ban.
Why hasn't this procedure been followed?
While this is a problem of behaviour that needs addressing, it's a little off-topic and deserves a separate thread.
THe question occurred to me this morning, If Dean has been such a problem, then why hasn't anyone started the formal greivance procedure?
After all, we already have a method for getting members to alter their behaviour, before going for an outright ban.
Why hasn't this procedure been followed?
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
Jonty,
That might be true if the request for the EGM was started after Dean was democratically elected as a trustee, but it was started a week or so before that, in an attempt to ban him from the space. Billy's question still stands.
> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Billy,The grievance procedure simply allows the trustees to ban members, for a trustee to be removed it requires a member vote at an EGM or AGM.Jonty
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 12:54:19 PM UTC, Jonty Wareing wrote:Billy,The grievance procedure simply allows the trustees to ban members, for a trustee to be removed it requires a member vote at an EGM or AGM.Jonty
Yes!
But this process was started BEFORE he was elected as a trustee. So it can't have been about removing Dean as a trustee, because he wasn't a trustee when the EGM was first requested.
The people putting this request in didn't use the internal procedures that we set up to stop this getting out of hand.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have a proposal that i would like to add to the EGM.
Since the people calling for the EGM asking to ban Dean as a member, haven't bothered to follow our internal rules, they are obviously people who cannot co-operate within a shared space. Therefore, i would like to propose a ban for all of them from membership of the hackspace as well. This vote to be taken at exactly the same time as the vote on Dean's membership.
So if Dean gets banned, they get banned as members as well.
> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
Correct, and can the speculation please hold off, it is distracting those who are actively trying to produce more facts in the background.
Ta
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.