<div dir="ltr">It sounds like in the future, members at meetings should be more conservative in what amount of alteration should be considered worth postponing the consensus. I can get behind that.<div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, davidfine <span dir="ltr"><<a 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">
I appreciate that decision. Al is correct that there is *some* room
for changing the wording of a proposal so long as it isn't radically
different. If you're calling something a 'stretch', that's one sign
it may be outside that scope :)<br>
This is not a criticism of the proposal per se, but process is
especially important on decisions that affect our rent-making
engine. On some level, the slow and frustrating parts of the
consensus process are the very reasons we chose to use it.<br>
--David<div><div><br>
<br>
<div>On 11/20/13, 2:33 PM, bfb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
The consensus of the meeting was that the proposal, as amended,
was not radically different enough to warrant another week of
discussion. The consensus page on the Noisebridge wiki also
suggests that consensus is decision-centric.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I retrospect, insisting that the proposal in question come
back the next week for further discussion, seems like the best
idea. I don't know that we can create policy to prevent such
happenings in the future. The process depends on a mutual
understanding of what is and is not radically different or
reasonably similar. My strengthened position is to always err on
the side of patience.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Kevin</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: davidfine <u></u> <br>
Date:11/20/2013 15:50 (GMT-06:00) <br>
To: Al Sweigart <u></u> <br>
Cc: noisebridge-discuss <u></u>
<br>
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd
week of a Consensus Item <br>
<br>
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 href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process</a><br>
Cheers,<br>
--David<br>
<br>
<div>On 11/20/13, 1:25 PM, Al
Sweigart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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 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 href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<u></u><u></u><u></u></blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>