[Noisebridge-discuss] key access for non-signers

[daniela Steinsapir]

>I think that we need to give time to the board  to go over ideas, and wait.
Frustation and trust should not be in the way.
D


>    audrey has a very good point that people are
> enthusiastic now; frustration will likely turn
> those feelings sour. something should be done
> quickly.
>    on the other hand, "if we can't trust each
> other..." seems premature: i bet most of us
> should get to know each other better.
>
>    al's suggestion to clarify and codify the
> members process and dues schedule seems very
> important. i second the tho't, and if i can,
> third it and fourth it.
>    certainly those who get a key should be
> willing to have it recorded so, along with
> their names and addresses and phones and
> emails....
>
>    seems that those who want to work in the
> place to get it workable might be the first
> set to get keys.
>    Give it a few days to see how that sorts
> out, then pass out some more keys to those
> with immediate plans to work.
>    might be smart to keep an eye out for what
> kinds of problems might arise.
>    some kind of card reader for the door
> seems a good idea, a matter addressing wear
> of the mechanical lock.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 20:46 -0700, Rachel McConnell wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>


-- 
www.danielast.com