[Noisebridge-discuss] Don't Shred On Me: Removing pages from membership binder

[aestetix aestetix]

We miss you, Molly! I hope you're doing well! Come see us soon!

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Mountain Sky
<mountainoceansky at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Hey!
>
> Please don't remove my membership application from the binder; I'm not done
> having it there! I expect to have you read my name aloud at every single
> Noisebridge meeting lest you 1) go about your days trying to forget me, 2)
> were unaware of who the jicama I was/am, and 3) may at some point be moved
> to clamour loudly for my perennial presence. CLAMOUR LOUDER, I can't hear
> you in the Northern Northernlands to the North. I love you all dearly,
> admire and applaud you from afar, and am always put at heart's ease by your
> gentle bickering, flickering of pixels, human-readable digits. But love is
> not binary! Keep me in your gray area for at least another year!
>
> To prove my unfailing esteem, send me your physical address/ p.o. box, and
> I'll send you some art.
>
> I'll see you as soon as I'm able,
> Molly
>
> > From: hephaestus at antipunk.net
> > Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:42:14 -0700
> > To: Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Removing pages from membership binder
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I discovered last night that we have no process for removing pages
> > from the membership binder if they're old or their membership gets
> > blocked. Our current process says if the name has been in the binder >
> > 4 weeks it can be brought up for membership at any meeting, even if
> > it's been blocked in the past or is super old. I propose that we add a
> > process to remove pages from the binder if they've been blocked, or
> > have more than 10 check marks on them. Here's my reasoning:
> >
> > 1) If a person's membership is blocked, they can either accept that
> > decision, or re-submit their name for membership and wait another four
> > weeks before their name comes up for consensus again. This gives the
> > blocked person time to allay any fears that others may have about
> > their membership.
> > 1.a) It also provides time for any parties interested in that person's
> > membership to express their concerns at any meeting in those four
> > weeks and limit the hassle and drama that could come from the name
> > coming up at a meeting without enough attendees to argue both sides.
> > (Sneaking the membership through by exploiting the process)
> > 1.b) It also serves as a reminder that this person is still attempting
> > to join noisebridge, if indeed they re-submit their name for
> > membership.
> >
> > 2) If a membership application has been in the binder for 10
> > consecutive weeks without that person either attending a membership
> > meeting, or asking for a proxy to represent them, their membership
> > application should be considered expired and purged from the binder.
> > This relates to point 1a above, is good housekeeping, and helps ensure
> > names only come up for consensus if they're active in the space.
> >
> > Please discuss and let me know how to improve these suggestions before
> > I submit them for consensus.
> >
> > --
> > Heph
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100827/247cedd2/attachment-0003.html>