<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I am not arguing that members can retroactively block consensus. I'm
stating that consensus can only be reached on proposals in the form
they were submitted to the list for prior review. In other words,
you can't submit a proposal to save kittens and then add language
minutes before the vote to allow an oil pipeline though the
bathrooms. Proposals are submitted to the list first so that members
can review them without being physically present at a Tuesday
meeting. That's not my opinion, that's a description of the process.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process</a><br>
Cheers,<br>
--David<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/13, 1:25 PM, Al Sweigart
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPyZGS=9tKk-Ne-TBQvAY0UHm-TDsw_Wg6Dm0rd-t01DujU0mw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">There is no rule or precedence against making
adjustments to consensus items. You are arguing that members can
declare that they are blocking a consensus item even after it
has passed consensus.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM,
davidfine <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:d@vidfine.com" target="_blank">d@vidfine.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> tldr; There are no
riders allowed on consensus items.<br>
<br>
You're mistaken. It's not allowed to tack things on to a
consensus proposal or "stretch" them at all. Wouldn't that
make you feel like you're circumventing the process that
we use to make reasonable decisions?<br>
You can reach consensus on something as it was posted to
the list or try again next week. You shot yourself in the
foot trying to rush it through, you'll need to follow
procedure before it counts for anything. <br>
You could make the argument that those parts which weren't
altered on the day of the meeting are still valid. But it
is an absolute certainty that membership fee requirements
have not been altered by the vote.<br>
Not to comment on the quality of the proposal. It might
get support in the future. <br>
Best of luck, <br>
--D<br>
<br>
<div>On 11/20/13, 8:14 AM, bfb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> James, I agree that eliminating
the requirement of member dues as a part of the
associate member decision was a stretch. It was topical
in the context of a member/associate member contrast. I
would not have consensed on a proposal that privileges
dues with full participation in consensus. ... ...
please jump in and correct me if I am mistaken.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Kevin </div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss"
target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>