[Noisebridge-discuss] Agenda item for Tuesday: are we up to code?

[aestetix aestetix]

Hey,

I recommend the safety committee discuss this, and create a plan to
propose at the meeting. There is no reason to have everyone discuss
this, because, as Josh said, it will simply get sidetracked and take
hours.

Also, while I realize people have good intentions, matters like this
should be brought to the listserv or a tuesday meeting so that if we
decide to contact the SFFD, we can do so as a group.

aestetix



On 6/28/09, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
> 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!
>
> --S
>
> 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.
>>
>> -rick
>>
>>
>> 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
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Shannon Lee
> (503) 539-3700
>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com