<div dir="ltr">And in that thread it was already pointed out that modifications are, in fact, allowed in the process if they are not radical changes. The issue of whether the member dues was a radical change was already discussed at that meeting, and then decided on.<div>
<br></div><div>Again, if you want to talk about the validity of last week's consensus item, then bring *that* up for discussion. Don't define it as invalid and then move on without involving others.</div><div><br>
</div><div>-Al</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:38 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 don't need to declare anything void. I'm not doing anything that
requires authority. I'm pointing out that process wasn't followed,
and being an advocate for good process. <br>
<br>
If you agree that the members present Tuesday over-enthusiastically
stretched the "minor changes" provision, you agree that the
additions haven't been made valid by consensus. What's likely to
happen is that it will come up again next Tuesday, nobody will
block, and we'll move on. <br>
<br>
But if we don't insist on following our own rules, the process is
vulnerable to abuse in the future. I'll point out that the thread
that started this was called "Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a
Consensus Item". <br>
--David<div><div><br>
<br>
<div>On 11/21/13, 11:40 AM, Al Sweigart
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">David, you are unilaterally declaring a part of the
consensus that was reached by the members last week to be
invalid. You don't have that authority, the membership does.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you care about discussing proposals before making
decisions, then bring up the validity of last week's consensus
for discussion. Don't just pretend it doesn't count and we
have to do a do-over.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Al<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:18 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">The
discussion so far counts as announcing the proposal at a
meeting. So<br>
I'll submit it to the consensus process at next
Tuesday's meeting. I'm<br>
not going to block it, even though the idea worries me a
bit. As long as<br>
the full membership has an opportunity to participate,
I'll support<br>
whatever decision is reached.<br>
Cheers,<br>
--David<br>
<br>
On 11/21/13, 9:44 AM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:<br>
> I think that our consensus process would be pretty
weak if proposals<br>
> couldn't mutate during the week that they're
discussed.<br>
><br>
> The goal of consensus (rather than democracy or
whatnot) is to take a<br>
> proposal and adjust it to address the preferences
and concerns of<br>
> everyone around the table until we find something
which everyone<br>
> present can live with. I've participated in plenty
of consensus<br>
> discussions in a variety of venues. In my
experience, when complex,<br>
> sophisticated, or interesting proposals are
discussed, lots of<br>
> amendment and adjustment is needed, and the final
consensus is not<br>
> something that any one person at the table would
have guessed would be<br>
> the final outcome.<br>
><br>
> We have a practice of announcing a proposal at one
meeting, then<br>
> having the discussion of it at the next. I do not
think that this<br>
> should prevent us from having a real and vibrant
discussion at the<br>
> second meeting. I understand the purpose of the
week's gap as<br>
> providing notice to everyone in our community: this
is what we'll be<br>
> discussing next week, and if that topic is
important to you, you<br>
> should find a way to participate in the discussion.<br>
><br>
> David Al and Kevin were discussing a sort of
double-notice, or<br>
> extended discussion. I think we could codify such a
way of doing<br>
> things like this:<br>
><br>
> * week zero: announce the topic of discussion;<br>
> * week one: discuss it and find provisional
consensus, then announce that;<br>
> * week two: without objection our provisional
consensus is finally<br>
> agreed, otherwise repeat week one.<br>
><br>
> This seems like a reasonable idea to me. It makes
the process longer,<br>
> and might require participants to come to several
meetings in a row,<br>
> but it does mean that nobody is going to be so
surprised at the<br>
> outcome of a consensus discussion that they'll kick
themself for not<br>
> being there when something unexpected came up. I
think I might suggest<br>
> it next week.<br>
><br>
> Other thoughts on this?<br>
> -Tom<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>
<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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></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></div>