[Noisebridge-board] Can I get a receipt for my 2010 dues?

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Wed Aug 10 01:12:22 UTC 2011

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Kelly <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is supposedly going to be a discussion item next week after
> people are back from stuff. Leif requested that it be delayed.

That sounds sensible.

> My major qualm (aside from the no records thing which is also a
> problem) is that the language of the original consensus technically
> means that we have to contact the person 4 times in 3 consecutive
> months and if we miss a month we have to start over again. This might
> be ok if we had scripted this long ago but we somehow never have. I
> think that 3 attempts to contact within a year is reasonable cause to
> expire someone's membership. And they can reply at any time, so the
> longer I take to contact them 3 times, the better for them perhaps.
> In any case, I tend to defer to consensus. While the consensus process
> sucks for lots of things, it doesn't suck for declaring members.
> That's kind of its strong suit. Typically if someone was consensed
> once, they should have no trouble getting consensed again. This has
> been the case with our recently re-affirmed members anyway.

I think there's an emerging tradition of coping with stuff like this
by having [time period] then renewing by consensus (we went with that
with the Tor project), so yes, maybe a clarification that three
attempts after three months hiatus would be sufficient (and also some
documentation of how and when those attempts were made) to move from
hiatus to requiring consensus again. Also maybe to have it as an
automatic process rather than an optional revocation, which seems kind
of arbitrary.


> -Kelly
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 17:40, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:06 PM, miloh <froggytoad at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Noisebridge Treasurer
>>> <treasurer at noisebridge.net> wrote:
>>>> FYI, Jof, there is an official database of members, and I keep it. In
>>>> the future, it will be kept by the secretary. Ryan I suggest that you
>>>> ask a friend to bring up your situation as a proxy at a membership
>>>> meeting. You can put it up as a discussion item on the wiki yourself,
>>>> and I will probably be there to relay this conversation, but it would
>>>> probably be good if you had a proxy there.
>>>> Since it's not a clear-cut situation, I'd prefer to defer to the
>>>> membership. According to the instructions on the wiki (I just edited
>>>> it to change this) contacting a board member is a legit "official" way
>>>> to abdicate your membership. It now says "treasurer and secretary"
>>>> which is a little closer to the actual record-keeping. In theory it's
>>>> totally fine if people abdicate via the president or a board member,
>>>> but they would need to then relay that info to me and the secretary.
>>>> Ryan, I really doubt that there would be any issues with reinstating
>>>> you as a member, but I like to respect the consensus on this sort of
>>>> thing. Especially since you can resume regular donations any time, and
>>>> the only difference that being an official member provides is that you
>>>> will be able to "participate fully in the consensus process" as they
>>>> say.
>>>> See https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership/FAQ and
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership etc regarding membership
>>>> vs being a regular donor.
>>>> -Kelly
>> Incidentally, I'm happy to raise this as a general or specific
>> question at today's meeting.
>> My personal feeling is that our tradition is that we have to ask you
>> (like some sort of curse) three times whether you want to not continue
>> paying before NB can (optionally) revoke membership:
>> "If you have not paid dues for three months or more, and have not
>> responded to at least three months of contact attempts by the
>> treasurer or other board member or officer, your membership can be
>> revoked by Noisebridge. If you later want to rejoin, you must go
>> through the joining process again."
>> We probably need to actually institute the repeated questioning -- I
>> think mct is doing this by hand with hiatus members right now, but we
>> also have the edge case where we don't have a record of a member (and
>> therefore don't contact them) which has also cropped up.
>> Will think on it.
>> d.
>>> This response is a really well written description of a sensible (to me)
>>> noisebridge process and needs to be kept as a best practices example for
>>> future officers
>>> Thanks for putting the time into this response, Kelly.
>>> -rma
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/board
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/board

More information about the Board mailing list