[Noisebridge-discuss] Reminder: Membership team meeting tonight, 6PM
jim
jim at well.com
Wed Apr 8 01:14:33 UTC 2009
i think your example falls under the dangerous category,
dangerous to us all: if someone physically hurts someone
else, it's a crime, police and assistant DAs may come to
stick their noses in, and anyway, any hurt to any one of
us is damage to our community. any threat to hurt our
community bears inspection and possibly d-m-i.
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 17:41 -0700, Christie Dudley wrote:
> I have been in an open group where one member made threats against
> person and property to other members. While there's no clear
> evidence, one of those threats seems to have materialized against one
> member.
>
> We probably don't want to draw a "non-excellence" line, or people will
> game it because they can. However, if you're considering
> non-member-making, having a process for that would make the situation
> less dramatic should it arise.
>
> Christie
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> I refuse to give up childish things.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list