<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
It's not even a bad proposal - but definitely needs consensus! I
propose we add a "double notice" trigger to consensus items that
involve change to the following things: membership requirements,
fees, changes to the consensus process itself, issues with the
lease, issues where a lawsuit is threatened. I'll polish that
proposal and announce it at the Tuesday meeting :)<br>
--D<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/21/13, 10:19 AM, John Ellis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEKig-ij+m-knr_-Yz0a-XUUKOvQMAe_w=dnaKp-R8d6dHZXPw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 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"> 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
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"> 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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
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"
target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>