[Noisebridge-discuss] consensus process

[Rachel McConnell]

I have several takeaways from last night.  I think everyone is aware 
that we made a lot of decisions and the one about the keys was
  a) not actually a consensus, but this got lost, and
  b) I changed my mind about what I was OK with last night

I'm happy to go into my reasoning for the below but hopefully it will be 
clear why these are good ideas.

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.


Thoughts?

Rachel