[Noisebridge-board] Re: Making Decisions and then backing out after concensus has been reached (was Re: Ick)

[Noah Balmer]

Last night I said I was not comfortable with handing keys out to everyone
before our paperwork was done.  I  tried to be heard over a cacophanous
shouting match and was apparently unsuccessful.  I thought I'd been heard
but I guess I wasn't.  The topic was shouted down and we moved on in spite
of my objections.  I can't think of what else I should have done without
just trying to yell louder.

Anyway, I stand with Rachel on this one.  As soon as Noisebridge exists and
has it's name on the lease, go nuts with keys if you want.  Until then, no.



On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>wrote:

> David Molnar wrote:
> > Rachel McConnell wrote:
> >> Upon morning consideration, I have to agree about the keys at least.
> >> I am also not completely comfortable giving a key to anyone who asks.
> >> I think we have to rescind that and hopefully come up with some other
> >> idea for access until the traceable system is installed.
> >
> > Well, we should talk about that. Part of the point of AnonAccess system
> > currently considered is that, while we can tell the person at the door
> > is in fact authorized to enter, we will not be keeping logs of who
> > entered when.
>
> Right. An auto locking door solves the issues that we have with all
> kinds of key systems. It works well for das labor and it will probably
> work well for us.
>
> >
> >> I see that David M isn't cc'd on this and he's out promising people
> keys.
> >
> > Yes, that's right, since I thought that's what we talked about at the
> > meeting. I do remember some discussion but I thought that we came down
> > as saying OK for everyone to get keys. I was wrong. Please e-mail the
> > list and edit the wiki to let everyone know.
> >
>
> This is what we discussed. You are not wrong. This was the agreement we
> reached last night and no one blocked. The entire board was present. We
> might have changed how we feel this morning but that doesn't change what
> actually happened last night. _Everyone_ was given a chance to speak and
> as the secretary, you didn't note a voice of dissent, did you?
>
> >>> Financial report and furniture are on there, but there were a couple
> >>> hours worth of other unlisted agenda items at meeting time, and some
> >>> of them (key stuff, tool-sharing stuff) are things I'd have liked a
> >>> chance to think about and talk about beforehand.  I said last night
> >>> that I'm not comfortable giving out keys until the paperwork is
> >>> sorted out, and now the meeting notes say that anyone who asks gets
> >>> one. For Fucks Sake what kind of consensus is that?
> >
> > I'm sorry, this is my mistake - my notes said we talked about it and
> > came down with everyone gets keys, although we had some other
> > discussion. E-mail the list and let people know that's not the way you
> > feel.
>
> It may be premature to give everyone keys. However, last night we seemed
> to be in agreement. Please correct me if I am mistaken. It also appeared
> that Noah agreed last night in that he did not block in the discussion
> process, comfortable or not. Rachel has stated that she changed her mind
> this morning but that doesn't change that she was alright with this
> during the process last evening.
>
> I think it's totally fair to say that this is an issue that needs
> further discussion. We cannot change the fact that the group feels we
> reached a consensus. Nor that we reported the consensus. If you don't
> feel that way, you need to speak up during the process and be a blocker.
> Please!
>
> I think it's worth noting that it's _already_ been decided. If we as a
> board want to change this, we need to discuss internally before we state
> this change in public. Furthermore, we may want to present this issue to
> the membership and let it be discussed on list. Just because two people
> feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that we change the policy. There's three
> to a quorum and we're supposed to vote for the will of the members who
> think that we've _already_ reached a consensus.
>
> I've just created board@ and I've cc'ed this email to that list. Lets
> have the discussion there. Please.
>
> Best,
> Jake
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/board/attachments/20081001/90b3527b/attachment-0003.html>