<div dir="ltr">David,<div><br></div><div style>That was my objection to the revised access control "no person except" consensus item was that it wasn't announced ahead of time as such and it'd been agreed 1-2 weeks previously to give the 2300-1000 restrictions a trial run.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>My understanding (bugs, misinterpretation not withstanding) is that associate members may access the space anytime, without dues, upon receiving 4 verifiable signatures/endorsements from consensed, dues-paying full-members or established associate members. Full Consenus-Participating members still do pay dues at $40-80/m </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Cheers!</div><div style>John</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM, 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">
In the future, yes. But I need to bring your focus back to the
present and insist that a major change was made to the membership
policy without most of the membership having any opportunity to
participate in the consensus process. Decisions that are made
without going through the consensus process don't mean anything. The
way to actually change the membership fee requirement would be to
submit it as a separate proposal.<br>
--David<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 11/20/13, 4:47 PM, Al Sweigart
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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 <br>
Date:11/20/2013 15:50 (GMT-06:00) <br>
To: Al Sweigart <br>
Cc: noisebridge-discuss <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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<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></blockquote></div><br></div>