it seems to be open I just registered for it
Please note that the short agenda and that it is being held in the conference room for lack of an available classroom.
3 Likes
Duly noted.
Thanks and Good Luckā¦
So how does it work first folks there get in and the rest
cant?
On 04/09/17 11:12, Walter Anderson wrote:
Luke,
Two points. First, the āprecedentā that you claim was wanted was
established quite a while ago when Richard Alexander was kicked off Talk
for a month (for a much more egregious act) by the act of an
administrator (who happened also to be a board member).What precedent you did set was that when the board wishes to silence a
member just before the elections. A member they had every right to
expect to raise concerns over their actions with the vote, they created
an opportunity to do so. The FACT is that despite the many ALLEGATIONS
that were allowed to be entered, the ONLY CHARGE against me was a PM
that was hardly unusual in its language for ANY member. Several board
members, including yourself, have made PUBLIC posts that were far more
foul and were in fact personal attacks. My post was commentary about the
posts of the individual, not attacks on the individual.The FACT is that I took a disagreement from the public forum (which I
have been encouraged by the members to do repeatedly) and was IN FACT
simply telling the person who had been complaining about the lift fee as
well as claiming we were LYING and MISLEADING new members, that I was
tired of telling him what his options to actually DO SOMETHING about his
concern were.He also THREATENED me with VIOLENCE. Any who wish can view the ACTUAL
posts I was blocked for here in the minutes (Thanks Erik for including
the actual evidence)
https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors_Meeting_20170319#AppendixAn ACT that the board chose to gloss over in its haste to set its
precedentā¦So yes, youāll have set a precedent that you will ignore the basics of
due process and evidence to accomplish your goals.Second, if the board had intended that a Chair could bring an end to the
blocking, then they should have used some basic English skills to
include that language in your resolution. You didnāt. So the attempts
to save your egos and say that a chair can override a board decision is
patently ridiculous. The BOARD blocked me (albeit in a manner that is
likely illegal), so only the BOARD can unblock me. If your stubbornly
insisting you did the right thing, then live with the consequences.
Donāt try to shift responsibility to a chair appointed by the board.
1 Like
Maybe this needs to be moved out to the back parking lot. Form the ācircle of contentionā and have at it.
2 Likes
Anyone who was at the meeting would easily recall that in the lengthy conversation that was had about this matter, one of the issues that came up ā from a question from a board member asking why this wasnāt an Infrastructure issue ā is that Infrastructure said they would have likely executed bans of this sort already but they didnāt feel like they had sufficient support for doing so as being within their unilateral power. (Put another way: they figured certain Talk citizens would have a hissy fit, throw around nasty fabricated accusations, and generally be squeaky wheels ā and as one member put it *ahemahemhandraise*: āIām not sure whether [their] pay grade covers having to take that kind of abuse.ā)
Basically, volunteers could have done this thing that everyone in the room agreed would benefit Talk, and those volunteers would have taken the full frontal load of crap that would have arisen from it.
So the board stepped up, and they said that this unanimously agreed-upon action (by people who attended the meeting ā because, much to the chagrin of some Talk pollsters, organization administration is run by those who show up to meetings, not who has the most free time available to hang out on an online forum) would also get the backing of the board.
Of the many, many misrepresentations of that meeting that have occurred on this board ā 90% of them from people who werenāt even there ā the greatest must be that this was an action the board initiated. Even aside from the obvious fact that the board wasnāt the petitioner who got it on the agenda, the action was one that 1) Infrastructure said they had already wanted to do, but didnāt feel they realistically had the authority to do under the auspices of moderation, and 2) there was unanimous agreement on by all who attended. (Even the infamous question of whether anyone could name a way Walterās presence on Talk had in any way been positive recently, which one Talk member has stated left him āuncomfortable,ā was unanimous ā the āuncomfortableā gentleman clearly did not speak out, but there were also a good half dozen people actively shaking their heads no in response.)
Ironically, itās a good thing that Walter notes that there was precedent previously ā particularly that the only prior precedent was an act performed (as he himself acknowledges) by a board member, not by the Infrastructure Committee. Thanks for the clarification, Walter. The board does have precedent of this being within their authority and of such being an acceptable use of it by the broader membership, as the prior case shows. So the objection is apparently to, what, the unanimous Infrastructure team being given that authority explicitly in this case, set as precedent for others? Because I keep reading angst about how this āshouldnāt have been a board decisionā¦ā Well, I guess weāre all in favor of the same thing, then. Where do I get my ticket for the kum-ba-yah circle? Iām in.
That said, Iām glad the board stepped up and had the guts to have the back of the committee that would have to implement this, as they requested. Classy move.
1 Like
As a member of that infrastructure team I think you are getting a little carried away with your statements of unanimity. I can attest that, at least as far as the āmoderator teamā is concerned, there was not a unanimous agreement.
2 Likes
There is a meeting scheduled for April 15th, 2pm in the conference room to discuss/vote on removing the block. Unfortunately the room was the only one available at the time so space is limited.
1 Like
If it is an open meeting then perhaps it can spill out into the common area where all interested parties can observe (quitely Iām sure).
1 Like
I think youāve got a bit of selection bias going on there. Luke previosly claimed the same in this thread, except that the poll was in favor of Walter.
Note that any non-board member would not have known the complaint was against Walter, as there is no description other than āComplaint against memberā in the BoD meeting agenda. Iāve already made a suggestion which might help expedite these matters: All complaints are to be handled at the start of the BoD meeting so that we donāt have to wait through 2 hours of budgetary and purchasing debate before speaking our mind on the issue.
A whole 6 people. Yeah, that seems like a vast majority to take action against Walter.
Walter is abrasive, sometimes crass, and usually not very tolerant. Do I agree with everything he says? No. Would I want any other member silenced in the same way under the same set of circumstances? No.
My issue boils down to this: One member made a threat against Walter. Walter said āIām done talking to youā in a PM. The member submitted a complaint to the BoD which was completely unfounded, and should have been tossed out in the first 5 minutes, just like the absurd sexual harassment complain by Alan against Alex. Unfortunately, BoD members who are not fond of Walter decided not to prosecute him for the complaint, but, rather, silence him due to their feelings about his contributions to Talk.
Not right, not classy, and not gonna get my vote.
8 Likes
Walter Anderson wrote the following:
George, Individual memories are always questionable. What you describe isnāt in the minutes for the meeting, therefore it didnāt happen. There is no record of that issue.
Sorry, but if you are implying I misrepresented anything, you are misinformed. Two board members previously tried to silence me in December. Claiming I lied about one of them. That board member was told, by the other three board members that it wasnāt a DMS issue that if he felt I lied, he could sue me for libel (which I am still awaiting). In this case, a new member filed a complaint. I asked specifically what the āchargesā were and the PM listed on the minutes were the total of the chargeās I was given. Which is why I didnāt bother to show up for the meeting. Sitting for hours to defend myself against a charge so patently absurd was a waste of my time. At no point, according to the minutes, did anyone even discuss what RULE my post brokeā¦ They just jumped to apparently dozens of unsubstantiated allegations and an apparent misrepresentation of the the flags. Andrew stated I had 82 flags. He didnāt discuss how many different people filed those flags, but witnesses have reported that Alex claimed nearly all of those flags were from him, his wife, Brooks, and Marrissaā¦ So four peopleā¦ He also said I had āfewerā positive flags. Completely ignoring that I have 5,200 Likes (over a thousand more then the next most liked person), and that those Likes are from well over a 100 different peopleā¦
[quote=āslinkygn, post:67, topic:18846, full:trueā]
Ironically, itās a good thing that Walter notes that there was precedent previously ā particularly that the only prior precedent was an act performed (as he himself acknowledges) by a board member, not by the Infrastructure Committee. Thanks for the clarification, Walter. The board does have precedent of this being within their authority and of such being an acceptable use of it by the broader membership, as the prior case shows. So the objection is apparently to, what, the unanimous Infrastructure team being given that authority explicitly in this case, set as precedent for others? [/quote]
Again, you seem to be misreading. I said a Talk Admin (I believe he may have been the only Talk admin at the time) decided on his own to ban a member for a month. Yes, he was also a board member, but no board action was involved in the decision. It was a single persons decision. It is important for everyone to understand that outside of a board meeting where they make collective rulings, individual board members have no more authority then any other normal member. They canāt make ārulingsā or act on their own recognizance. Only chairs and other officers of the corporation have additional powers above regular members. And those additional powers are clearly delineated.
3 Likes
That is silly.
Any way you look at it, this ban was death from 1,000,000 pinpricks. All those drops of blood add up.
1 Like
Again Walter will present alternative facts and will hide behind hearsay. In that meeting I said that I wish more people used flags as my guess is that itās mainly Brandon, Brooks myself and a few others that did most of the flagging. I never mentioned my wife. It was in relation to all of talk not just you.
You ask what rule youāre breaking, I will say https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Code_of_Conduct specifically number 4.
There are a few other misrepresented items but the list is long and my time is short.
2 Likes
As the āhis wifeā in this scenario, Iāll go ahead and speak for myself.
I almost never get into the Talk drama churn because I, like most members, am not here for that. I also TRY to use Talk in a way that best utilizes my time. Iām an active member and want to know whatās going on. So I scan the list of topics under the New category, click on the ones I want to hear about, and then ādismiss allā on the rest. That said, Iām following this thread because itās one that affects me anytime I want communication about the Space.
I support Walterās Talk ban and this is one example of why. I think he often spreads misinformation that leads to fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Iām not entirely sure thatās his intent as Iāve met and interacted with him many times at DMS(you wouldnāt think that because apparently he doesnāt know my name.) and heās usually helpful, friendly, and sweet. He might actually believe the things he writes.
Iām not sure how to check but Iād guess Iāve flagged less than 10 posts on Talk. Iāve talked to @LisaSelk about this and apologized for not being a better forum user, I see the garbage and just scroll by.
And I guess Walter did say that he heard from āwitnessesā but thatās his M.O.-- like how he heard that a board member had inappropriate romantic contact with a vendor. Or how he heard that another board member didnāt inform a chair that a major donation was being made to their area. Or how he heard that the reason our lawyer was selected was strictly for how cheap he was.
I love this place. Iāve put countless hours in, Iāve taken off work for it, Iāve shown up for most member meetings and most board meetings. Iām not saying this to brag, because letās be real, thereās a bunch of other members that do the same thing. Iām just trying to say I put my heart into DMS but I am not here for this noise.
7 Likes
My exact thoughts.
8 Likes
Walter since you donāt give up you did lie you accused me of having previous relationship with the insurance agent.
Others feel free to read about it here.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/d-o-insurance-characters/15156/9
Letās look at the facts
I went to school from 2007-2010
Erin went to school from 1999-2002 at a different school
I was in Junior High when Erin started college.
Walter again to repeat what I said again please stop spreading misinformation
For anyone wanting further information on D&O insurance please visit this thread where Walter again tries to spread misinformation.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/simply-voting-and-this-years-board-of-directors-election/19074/107
If you would have even walked to the next room you would have known I was the one saying this does not belong here and moderators should be handling this type of activity, It was only when the moderators told me that they were worried about what type of legal action you would go after them with that I was in favor of blocking you on talk.
To be honest Walter I donāt care one way or the other about you but what does frustrate me and I will fight you on is when you constantly threaten volunteers with lawsuits I have a problem with that.
My position on the issue remains unchanged I will fully support the moderators abilityās to regulate the forums.
2 Likes
My statements were of unanymity among those attending the board meeting. The Infrastructure chair and vice chair were there, representing the governing opinion of the infrastructure team. Minority dissent is always welcome to speak in a deliberative assembly, of course.
2 Likes
I implied (EDIT: expressly stated) a large number of people misrepresented things. I certainly didnāt name anyone and will note that I donāt recall you misrepresenting anything, and thank you for that, @artg_dms . (Though I honestly only recall the most egregious misrepresentations, as there have been so many as so much time has passed.)
EDIT: Oh, never mind, that apparently wasnāt @artg_dms talking, but Walter. Well, Walter, of course you misrepresented things. You are playing games of Telephone, because you decided to sit 50 feet away from the meeting instead of in the meeting room. I donāt blame you for your misconstruing what occurred.
You may recall, by the way, that I was actually standing immediately there when you were first told that the meeting had resulted in you being banned from Talk. So, again, I have good faith that at least some of your misrepresentations are due to the game of Telephone and not to yourself ā as I heard what you were told, in person.
2 Likes
Yes. Both would exhibit selection bias.
The selection bias of the poll in that thread you quote is toward Talk members ā and moreover, Talk members who frequent the board on a regular basis, or put another way those that would bother to wade into the sorts of muck we sometimes get into.
My selection bias would be toward the people that actually attended the meeting.
Given the inevitability of selection bias in non-random samples to begin with, I feel very comfortable that my sample is more relevant than that in the poll.
1 Like