[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting notes 2011-09-13

[Danny O'Brien]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Danny O'Brien wrote:
>
>  Some highlights:
>>
>> We have two new members,  Jorgen and Alex Paul! Hi to you!
>>
>> There was agreement that we should postponed the proposed banning of Rob
>> 2.0 until his return.
>>
>
> Danny I think you meant to write Jay, not Rob 2.0.  This is very confusing
> for people and I ask that as notetaker you please be more careful.
>

Sorry, was a little bit more drunk when writing that summary at 2.30AM on
the top than at other moments in my life.


>
> Meeting notes:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**wiki/Meeting_Notes_2011_09_13<https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2011_09_13>
>
> As for my proposal to ban Jay, I will say here that I still intend to bring
> this proposal on 09-20 regardless of people thinking it should be delayed,
> and I do not want it removed from the agenda.  I see that somehow people
> consensed on delaying this proposal.  I will be here on 09-20 to make this
> proposal in person, and I know that it will be seconded at that time, and we
> can have a discussion.  Consensus process is not based on blocks, it is
> based on negotiation toward something everyone can agree on.
>

> I and at least one other person feel strongly that if Rubin wants Jay to
> come here but everyone else wants him to stay away, that a reasonable
> compromise would be that Jay would only be allowed at the space when Rubin
> was here to be his escort.  We can discuss that at the meeting on 09-20.
>
>
I can't speak for Rubin, but the feeling at the meeting was not that Rubin
wants Jay to come here, and more that it was inappropriate to pursue a ban
during a suspension period.

I *suspect*, but do not know, that this wider issue (of not going for a ban
when the suspension is working) will continue to be a challenge if you're
pushing for a consensus next week, and that you're more likely to get a
consensus on this after the suspension is over.

This also plays into the problem of overriding the suspension in order to
allow Jay to plead his case, which is the reason we discussed this at all.
Again, you don't have to do this, but based on previous cases, I suspect a
ban is going to have to less chance of achieving consensus if Jay hasn't
been offered an opportunity to defend his case at the meeting or at the
least have an advocate he nominates present.

I'd also say that what tends to happen recently (the Tor project for
instance) is that if it looks like consensus isn't going to be reached, the
item is withdrawn for a week until a negotiation can take place, and then
represented the next week, without resetting the process. This is something
though, that would have to be specifically offered as a possibility at the
beginning of next week's consensus, and confirmed as desirable, and some
constraints are put in place. I don't think people are going to feel
comfortable with a topic like this if we just keep bouncing it week-by-week
until consensus is achieved.

I should also say that I'm tend to be conservative about whether consensus
will be reached within meeting than some, and tend to prefer working stuff
through before meetings until there's a strong chance that consensus will be
reached.

d.

> Thanks
> -jake
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110914/429ee7f4/attachment-0003.html>