[Noisebridge-discuss] Reminder: Membership team meeting tonight, 6PM

[jim]

   best i can tell, those are the only good reasons 
for de-member-ification. social and psychological 
and personal stress points don't seem appropriate 
for d-m-i (is there a way to hack that stuff?). i 
guess there's physically dangerous behavior (e.g. 
hacking nitro-glycerin, police cars...). 
   should there be some r-m-i for those who've been 
d-m-i-ed, or should d-m-i-ers have to come back 
through the same process as strangers to the group? 

   the groups i've been involved with had a strict 
concensus rule: any objection stalled forward 
progress. it was occasionally a matter of whimsy, 
but not often, usually some personal edge that was 
felt threatened--the process forced resolution of 
whatever seemingly weird issue the objector had in 
mind, which seems, as i look back, excellent. 




On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:04 -0700, Mitch Altman wrote:
> I'm hoping to be at NB at 6pm for this, too.
>  
>  
> Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Josh.
>  
>  
> One thing I'd like to add to the list of possible things to talk about
> tonight is:  should we have automatic de-member-ification for people
> who don't pay dues for X number of months, and who haven't responsded
> to emails or phone calls for Y number of months?
>  
>  
> Mitch.
>  
>  
> 
>  
> -----------------
>  
> > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:48:40 -0700
> > From: josh at joshisanerd.com
> > To: rachel at xtreme.com
> > Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Reminder: Membership team meeting
> tonight, 6PM
> > CC: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > 
> > I'm going to try and make it, but will likely be late. I just wanted
> > to "phone it in" a bit, in case the dayjob doesn't resolve itself.
> > 
> > One potential addition to the agenda: do we have a quorum for
> > concensus on membership decisions? That is: if we only have 3 people
> > there on Tuesday, can we roll in a new member?
> > 
> > 
> > A few things that I would want to mention at the beginning of the
> > meeting, to lend it structure and generally focus things:
> > 
> > * What are the goals of the meeting?
> > * What are the non-goals of the meeting?
> > * When is the next meeting?
> > 
> > * What are the problems?
> > * Is the problem realistic, and do we have a "threat model" for it?
> > * For solutions, what are pros/cons? Do they address the problem?
> > 
> > 
> > Quick strawman proposals follow, hopefully to let people prepare
> > better for discussion.
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:25:41AM -0700, Rachel McConnell wrote:
> > > The membership team is meeting before the general meeting tonight,
> to
> > > discuss topics of Great Interest. Specifically:
> > > 
> > > * the concept of a hiatus in membership, for people temporarily
> > > Elsewhere. What would it mean? How would it work?
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't have any real opinions here, but the natural thing is "You
> can
> > stop and start on month-aligned boundaries when you're out of the
> area
> > for the month." Beyond that, we're designing against people gaming
> > the system, and that's not really our concern: it falls under being
> > excellent, so we can simply lean on that with the next point in
> hand.
> > 
> > > * forcible de-member-ification. With luck we will never need it,
> but
> > > we'd better have it ready if we do.
> > > 
> > 
> > Concensus-minus-one seems popular here, but I'd love to hear from
> > others' experiences in similar organizations. It seems to me that
> C-1
> > is overly conservative, in that you'll never get any but the worst
> > offenders de-member-ed. (and is this conservativeness a feature or a
> > problem?)
> > 
> > This is a very important feature of our membership process, so we
> > probably want to do some homework before choosing one (or be willing
> > to change processes radically a few times; either approach gets the
> > right kind of result in the end).
> > 
> > > * how's the current induction process working? Some people have
> > > suggested it's not working as well as we would like. Do we want to
> > > change it?
> > > 
> > 
> > I'd love to keep the binder system, but for people to be
> "immediately"
> > up for membership, with the typical case being "Who blocks John's
> > membership because they don't know him?" and most of the membership
> > raising their hands. This handles both the Slim case (has been
> > around, but not jumped through our hoops), and the G Carter Stokum
> > case (nobody wants him as a member, even though he's been there
> > forever). It also institutionalizes the whole "Get to know a lot of
> > people and do cool stuff" ethos that seems to motivate our waiting
> > period. People would be in the room for the check of "Don't know
> > them", then leave for the proper discussion. This lets them know who
> > to meet, but still let them see how concensus works afterwards.
> > 
> > Almost, but not quite, looking forward to this meeting =)
> > -- 
> > Josh Myer 650.248.3796
> > josh at joshisanerd.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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