[Noisebridge-discuss] Theoretical discussion on what must be approved by consensus at Noisebridge

[Christie Dudley]

I changed the subject line to reflect the true nature of this discussion
because we've extended well beyond the realm of anything that's listed in
there.

Comments interpsersed.
---
Why I take the road less traveled?  Oh, that's easy.  I'm claustrophobic.


On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

> my comments interspersed...
> JS: seems worthy of examination. my opinion:
> people inviting their friends to join NB seems not a case of "in
> the name of noisebridge". setting up a partnership or customer
> relation with another entity does. (just for clarity, anything a
> member does to hack something, perform, create, etc., is done
> personally; NB provides a venue in which people can do their
> things.)
>

How about interacting with the press?  What about representing Noisebridge
in a formal context such as at events or conventions?  These are far more
important to the well-being of Noisebridge than committing to pay the power
bill.  Although we have been pretty lax by your standards in discussing
trash service.  Do we really need to have a consensus vote and hash that out
at meetings?  I mean, I never even heard a competing bid.

That being said, for the monkeybrains service we have committed to nothing.
I don't think it's sinking in with most people that we have not agreed to
do, pay, or be anything FOR Monkeybrains.  This is neither a partnership nor
a customer relationship.  They're simply giving us bandwidth.  Andy donated
the gear.  (Thanks Andy!)  No agreement == no commitment.  So this situation
would not apply even by your own criteria.



> JS: accepting a donation may or may not be "in the name of
> noisebridge". people bring by tools, equipment, materials,
> and general crap. mostly these are just dumped in the space,
> maybe neatly. these are not "in the name of" nor "on behalf
> of" noisebridge in any significant sense.
>   Note that as NB is a 501(c)3 corporation, in the case of
> donations by parties declaring their donations as 501(c)3
> deductions on their tax statements, NB is bound by some
> restrictions as to what we can do with the donations: we
> can't just sell them, nor can we turn them over to one or
> more members as their new personal toys. it's unlikely
> but possible that the IRS or some other entity may want to
> audit the donors and verify by inspection that NB has not
> violated our legal restraints. in the case that NB no longer
> wants a donation, dispersal must be done within legal bounds.
> there may be costs NB has to incur, for example for some
> donation that requires a lot of power to run, or something
> that must have natural gas (NB may have to incur costs of
> running gas lines), or there may be known safety hazards
> that require some kind of improvement or that are disallowed
> by the coding ordinances for this building....
>

You raise all very good points here.  It's important for someone who brings
something into the space to recognize how it will impact everyone else in
the space.  I disagree that it's necessary to send every donation to
consensus to determine this.  I expect each person who considers bringing
something into the space to be excellent and consider the impact they have
on the other members and guests.

Take the DIYBio fridge for example.  Assume it was donated.  It was brought
into the space without consideration for how it would impact the space.  We
did not have room for it, and there was no understanding of what it was and
why it was in the middle of the space.  It impacted other people,
particularly those who's shelves it blocked.


> JS: i don't think we're so bad. we've had some email wildfires,
> but seems to me things have simmered down reasonably well in
> previous cases, and tho' a lot of us get bored or frustrated
> with the volume, the air does get a good clearing.
>

I have to say I disagree here.  There are a number of good projects that
came and went because of silly speculation over how they impacted the
space.  Take Deep Crack, for example.  This is a monumental historical piece
of hardware in the hacking world that members wanted to run a workshop
with.  Although it posed no real threat to anyone, the donation was
withdrawn because of continued speculation over imagined hazards.


> Summary: "in the name of noisebridge" means noisebridge incurs
> some legal or financial other formal obligation.
> "on behalf of noisebridge" means that noisebridge incurs some
> spatial or labor or cost responsibility.
> if the implications of members' actions have insignificant
> affect in either regard, we're an anarchistic do-ocracy that
> deprecates labels.
>
> my opinion, of course.
>

Wow, this is getting awfully lawyerly.  Are you sure we need to get things
nailed down to that level of detail and verbiage?  It'll all be lost in a
year once we forget this discussion unless we have some sort of enforcement
regime, which I'm completely opposed to.

I'd rather just people be excellent to each other, which means being mindful
of their impact on others in the space.

Oh, and by the way, as a matter of law, the only people who can enter
Noisebridge into any sort of a legally binding thing are officers (not
directors) so that's Jake, Jeffrey and Seth.  Unless one of these people
have to be involved in order to commit us to anything.

Christie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091129/e358fe66/attachment-0002.html>