[Noisebridge-discuss] More details for the nap pods?

jim jim at well.com
Wed Dec 3 03:01:21 UTC 2008


   i looked around on the wiki and found 
nothing that seems like an approximation 
of what are our established processes. 
claims in the email threads are somewhat 
contradictory. rachel put out something 
that seems pretty good in email with a 
title "concensus process" dated 20081001, 
jonas and shannon lee had a response. 


-------------------------
rachel's original posting: 

Suggested process guidelines:

1. We set a time limit for meetings and anything that doesn't 
get  discussed within the time limit is pushed off until the 
next meeting.  I think an hour and a half is a reasonable time 
limit, or an hour.  Two hours seems too long, to me.  I don't 
want to limit discussion time on specific items though.

2. Someone leads the meeting.  Someone records the meeting.  
Last night Andy and David respectively filled these roles and 
up to a point it worked very well, but more definition will be 
good.  The leader's role would be to introduce the agenda 
items, keep discussion on topic, and ensure everyone gets 
heard.  The recorder's role is to write down important points 
and the consensus decision, if any.

3. Once it appears that consensus has been reached, the 
recorder reads back their understanding of it so everyone 
knows what the Official Record is, and has a last chance to 
object if necessary.

4. (This is the big one) No decisions on anything should be 
made at the same meeting the idea is introduced at.  It should 
take at least two meetings, one to introduce it and have some 
initial discussion, and the next to make the decision (if it's 
ready to be made).  We really don't need to rush into anything, 
and people should have time to think things over.  Not to 
mention members who could not make it to the meeting.


-------------------------
jonas' response: 

> 3. Once it appears that consensus has been reached, the recorder 
> reads back their understanding of it so everyone knows what the 
> Official Record is, and has a last chance to object if necessary.

And post it directly on the web as a blog/email? ;-)


> 4. (This is the big one) No decisions on anything should be made 
> at the same meeting the idea is introduced at.  It should take 
> at least two meetings...,

I like this one. Meanwhile, if a decision is due to be taken at a 
meeting, send it in advance to the  announce list (it'll probably 
be implied by writing a record).


-------------------------
shannonl's response: 

The way a lot of organizations run this is to have several different
kinds of meetings, to whit:

* the general weekly/montly meetings, at which the business of the group
is done -- that is, the meeting at which we do whatever it was we formed
the group to do; in our case, this probably means hacking and discussion
thereof.

* the board meeting, at which the board hashes through the details of
actually running the organization, one aspect of which is deciding which
decisions they can make and which are passed on to general / voting
meetings.  this meeting is usually held slightly less often than the
general meeting.

* the member's voting meeting, where questions the group needs to decide
on get hashed out by the whole group.  mostly this means proposals the
board has decided to refer to the members.  this meeting is generally
held quarterly or annually.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the format we *have* to stick to, just
that this is the one I've seen work over and over again.  Consensus
driven organizations can work within the above framework just as well as
heirarchically-oriented organizations can.  One way to make this work in
a more consensus-driven way is to have a much larger board, and to have
it be fairly porous, such that we still have a lot of member input while
not requiring those not interested to sit through the boring stuff.

-------------------------



On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 17:38 -0800, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> Rubin Abdi wrote:
> > Due to a discussion on IRC with Jake, I've made the decision that I
> > don't have the authority to make any reasonable statement on how the
> > napping pods project should continue onward (if at all or not). I no
> > longer wish to be point man or involved with this project. Please direct
> > any discussion about this project to Jake. I will now refrain from
> > commenting to this thread. Thanks.
> > 
> 
> In the interest of transparency:
> 
> It was my understanding that we (as a group) had decided there was going
> to be a "capsule hotel" in the space for quite some time. It was
> discussed far before we had 83c. In any case, I was under the impression
> that we were going to have something for napping or just general
> isolated relaxing. Perhaps in the form of pods or capsules and that we
> had reached consensus on this issue.
> 
> I understood that Rubin and Reed were taking the lead from a meeting or
> two discussing the issue. I thought that I had expressed that I was
> trying to find a Japanese capsule. I understood that there were more
> than the three of us involved but all of us were pretty busy with
> various things. Specifically, I had discussed this capsule finding
> mission with someone heading to Japan in December. Obviously, no capsule
> has been delivered as he flies to Tokyo in Mid-December. A capsule may
> never be delivered and perhaps it isn't needed if someone was to install
> a pod beforehand.
> 
> With all of that said...
> 
> It seems prudent that if we're going to bail on an idea or plan, we
> should probably just raise the issue in a meeting. Or if someone else
> feels like something is taking a long time, perhaps they can propose
> using the space in a meeting and we can come to consensus as we do for
> most other issues.
> 
> If no one wants to use that space, I don't see any issue in waiting for
> possible time for pods to appear, nor do i see any issue in waiting for
> the possible Japanese capsule. If someone wants to use the space and
> it's not being used currently, perhaps the people who are interested can
> raise the issue and then we can change the plans?
> 
> I'm totally happy to bail on the napping pod and capsule hotel issue if
> it's not wanted. I'm not really putting much effort into it other than
> possible purchasing one from Japan if one is found. I hope that if we do
> bail on the issue, we do it in our established processes. I also hope
> that if we bail, we do so because someone else really wanted to put the
> space to use right away. Just taking time doesn't seem to indicate that
> the process has failed or isn't happening. The darkroom comes to mind.
> Sometimes somethings take longer than others.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Best,
> Jake
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list