<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>