I have been in an open group where one member made threats against person and property to other members.� While there's no clear evidence, one of those threats seems to have materialized against one member.� <br><br>We probably don't want to draw a "non-excellence" line, or people will game it because they can.� However, if you're considering non-member-making, having a process for that would make the situation less dramatic should it arise.<br>
<br>Christie<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, jim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim@well.com">jim@well.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
� best i can tell, those are the only good reasons<br>
for de-member-ification. social and psychological<br>
and personal stress points don't seem appropriate<br>
for d-m-i (is there a way to hack that stuff?). i<br>
guess there's physically dangerous behavior (e.g.<br>
hacking nitro-glycerin, police cars...).<br>
� should there be some r-m-i for those who've been<br>
d-m-i-ed, or should d-m-i-ers have to come back<br>
through the same process as strangers to the group?<br>
<br>
� the groups i've been involved with had a strict<br>
concensus rule: any objection stalled forward<br>
progress. it was occasionally a matter of whimsy,<br>
but not often, usually some personal edge that was<br>
felt threatened--the process forced resolution of<br>
whatever seemingly weird issue the objector had in<br>
mind, which seems, as i look back, excellent.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:04 -0700, Mitch Altman wrote:<br>
> I'm hoping to be at NB at 6pm for this, too.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Josh.<br>
><br>
><br>
> One thing I'd like to add to the list of possible things to talk about<br>
> tonight is: �should we have automatic de-member-ification for people<br>
> who don't pay dues for X number of months, and who haven't responsded<br>
> to emails or phone calls for Y number of months?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Mitch.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> -----------------<br>
><br>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:48:40 -0700<br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:josh@joshisanerd.com">josh@joshisanerd.com</a><br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:rachel@xtreme.com">rachel@xtreme.com</a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Reminder: Membership team meeting<br>
> tonight, 6PM<br>
> > CC: <a href="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> ><br>
> > I'm going to try and make it, but will likely be late. I just wanted<br>
> > to "phone it in" a bit, in case the dayjob doesn't resolve itself.<br>
> ><br>
> > One potential addition to the agenda: do we have a quorum for<br>
> > concensus on membership decisions? That is: if we only have 3 people<br>
> > there on Tuesday, can we roll in a new member?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > A few things that I would want to mention at the beginning of the<br>
> > meeting, to lend it structure and generally focus things:<br>
> ><br>
> > * What are the goals of the meeting?<br>
> > * What are the non-goals of the meeting?<br>
> > * When is the next meeting?<br>
> ><br>
> > * What are the problems?<br>
> > * Is the problem realistic, and do we have a "threat model" for it?<br>
> > * For solutions, what are pros/cons? Do they address the problem?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Quick strawman proposals follow, hopefully to let people prepare<br>
> > better for discussion.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Rachel McConnell wrote:<br>
> > > The membership team is meeting before the general meeting tonight,<br>
> to<br>
> > > discuss topics of Great Interest. Specifically:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > * the concept of a hiatus in membership, for people temporarily<br>
> > > Elsewhere. What would it mean? How would it work?<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I don't have any real opinions here, but the natural thing is "You<br>
> can<br>
> > stop and start on month-aligned boundaries when you're out of the<br>
> area<br>
> > for the month." Beyond that, we're designing against people gaming<br>
> > the system, and that's not really our concern: it falls under being<br>
> > excellent, so we can simply lean on that with the next point in<br>
> hand.<br>
> ><br>
> > > * forcible de-member-ification. With luck we will never need it,<br>
> but<br>
> > > we'd better have it ready if we do.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > Concensus-minus-one seems popular here, but I'd love to hear from<br>
> > others' experiences in similar organizations. It seems to me that<br>
> C-1<br>
> > is overly conservative, in that you'll never get any but the worst<br>
> > offenders de-member-ed. (and is this conservativeness a feature or a<br>
> > problem?)<br>
> ><br>
> > This is a very important feature of our membership process, so we<br>
> > probably want to do some homework before choosing one (or be willing<br>
> > to change processes radically a few times; either approach gets the<br>
> > right kind of result in the end).<br>
> ><br>
> > > * how's the current induction process working? Some people have<br>
> > > suggested it's not working as well as we would like. Do we want to<br>
> > > change it?<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I'd love to keep the binder system, but for people to be<br>
> "immediately"<br>
> > up for membership, with the typical case being "Who blocks John's<br>
> > membership because they don't know him?" and most of the membership<br>
> > raising their hands. This handles both the Slim case (has been<br>
> > around, but not jumped through our hoops), and the G Carter Stokum<br>
> > case (nobody wants him as a member, even though he's been there<br>
> > forever). It also institutionalizes the whole "Get to know a lot of<br>
> > people and do cool stuff" ethos that seems to motivate our waiting<br>
> > period. People would be in the room for the check of "Don't know<br>
> > them", then leave for the proper discussion. This lets them know who<br>
> > to meet, but still let them see how concensus works afterwards.<br>
> ><br>
> > Almost, but not quite, looking forward to this meeting =)<br>
> > --<br>
> > Josh Myer 650.248.3796<br>
> > <a href="mailto:josh@joshisanerd.com">josh@joshisanerd.com</a><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> > <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>I refuse to give up childish things.<br>