[Noisebridge-discuss] key access for non-signers
Al Billings
albill at arcanology.com
Thu Oct 2 04:28:34 UTC 2008
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> Yes, I think people can wait. I however think we're pissing people off
> and it's a poor idea. We're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist
> and this is a bad idea. A number of people are unhappy with the course
> of action taken thus far, many people felt we reached a consensus and
> are confused.
>
> I hope others will reply.
>
I'm unhappy that we made a decision (or so it seemed last night) only to
have one person, Noah, state that we didn't actually reach consensus and
another, Rachael, saying that even though we did, she changed her mind
and, as one of the leaseholders, she has veto power on the decision.
That being said, I completely understand where Rachel is coming from and
I don't know how comfortable I would be with my name on the lease and an
unknown and unrecorded number of people out there with keys.
I'm not sure what a good solution is but I'm sure people will reach some
sort of further consensus. Some of this will be solved when we are
incorporated and change the key system anyway though the issue of
liability isn't going to change completely since board members are still
likely to be liable for some things to do with the space.
Since I'm leaving town and will likely be off Internet for most of a
couple of weeks, I'm hoping that when I come back, this has all been
happily resolved.
I think one of our big priorities should be clarifying and codifying the
members process and what kind of dues we want from people. A bunch of us
gave a bunch of money to the group to get the space but we need to
figure out how things will work once we are incorporated.
Al
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list