[Noisebridge-discuss] Agenda item for Tuesday: are we up to code?
shannon at scatter.com
Sun Jun 28 17:10:37 UTC 2009
There is a safety committee; it has been dormant for a while, maybe you guys
should resurrect it?
I reiterate what Josh said -- the way to get this stuff done is to do it.
In order to get something on the agenda, you put it on the agenda (I note
that nobody has). The agenda for next Tuesday is here:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2009_06_30 (I note that
nobody has made that page yet) -- if you want to add an item, a good
starting place would be to copy the form from last week --
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2009_06_30 -- and add your
item to the discussion topics.
The next phase is to show up and lead discussion on it. If the item gets
called out in the meeting and nobody owns it, we'll walk past it, so be
there, or get somebody who's going to be there to own it.
The final phase is to be willing to actually *do* the things that you think
ought to be done. Ideally, when you bring something to the meeting, it
should be of the form, "I intend to do X, I want some help and to make sure
everybody else knows." I encourage y'all to have a plan of action before
Tuesday, or else to limit the discussion point to a brief "We're opening a
discussion of code compliance and/or safety committee stuff, those
interested should talk to me after the meeting and/or at [designated time
for a meeting]."
Good luck, and thanks for pitching in!
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:37 AM, rick wesson
<rick at support-intelligence.com>wrote:
> the board should form a safety committee that meets, criteria is that
> the members of the committee understand the code. members of the
> committee could also report at board meetings and off load any
> discussion to their meetings. After you clean up, you'll probably only
> need to meet after an accident and when you are renewing your insurance.
> Josh Myer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:34:21AM -0700, Sai Emrys wrote:
> >> I'd like to propose an agenda item for next meeting (which I'll be at).
> >> Namely: are we up to code?
> > Typically at a Tuesday meeting, when something like this is brought up
> > without tight scoping, we lose an hour of 30 people's lives to folks
> > talking about something, with no resolution beyond "We all resolve
> > that we need beer."
> > Can I suggest that we instead put this down as "Who's knows (or is
> > interested in learning about) the relevant codes, and helping in
> > making plans and recommendations to better fulfill code?"
> > Once there's buy-in for that, there's probably buy-in to actually make
> > those changes happen. Without that followthrough, all we're doing is
> > making ourselves more culpable if SFFD et al ever do need to come in,
> > and find that we're in violation of obscure corners of code.
> > I like the continued interest and focus on safety issues, but worry
> > about adding building code, etc, to the mix this early. In general, I
> > see little point in adhering to code for the sake of adhering to code.
> > It's far more important that the people who use our space, both
> > members and non-, think before they act, and then take personal
> > responsibility for their decisions. Adding a layer of arbitrary and
> > impersonal responsibility discourages that kind of thoughtfulness, and
> > encourages CYA thinking instead.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss