[Noisebridge-discuss] Recently consensed members? and other note-taking woes

[Noisebridge Treasurer]

The link is nice but it's not a string search. At some point we need
to reconcile our preference for obfuscating our membership list and
lack of official protocol with the need to genuinely keep track of
members.

I think this is another item that would be solved by having a diligent
secretary. While we may not have official protocol, I personally have
protocol as the treasurer, and we need a secretary who can commit to
following their own protocol as well. In theory, all of these records
could be kept separately from the wiki if we had sufficiently diligent
officers (and finish the audit). The downside of this approach is less
transparency but it seems like the membership list is one item where
we want less transparency. Do people agree with that sentiment? I
don't personally, but I would defer to people who do.

-Kelly

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 14:50, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 04:03:13AM -0800, Noisebridge Treasurer wrote:
>> We really need to keep basic, regular records of this. I know that we
>> shy away from public membership lists, but apparently simply entering
>> things in the meeting notes is not sufficient. It doesn't help that
>> the mediawiki search sucks balls:
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=meeting+notes&go=Go
>> srsly? Can I at least get the newest pages first?
>
> Yeah, really. :(  Sorry that feature sucks so badly.
>
> This link is better:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Category:Meeting_Notes
>
>> I have a lot on my plate right now so this isn't a high-priority fix
>> for me, but it does need to get dealt with. In the meantime I will
>> continue to track down new members on an individual basis, but it
>
> It used to be the norm that after a meeting where a new member was
> consensed, we'd send an email to treasurer@ and secretary at .  I
> understand that email is kinda old school fuddy duddy for the kids these
> days, but I still think that's the sanest system.
>
> (Of course, I was at a recent meeting with a new member consensus and
> didn't send that email, so I suck.)
>
> -andy
>