[Noisebridge-discuss] Access control & Safety, both personal and general space.

[Shannon Lee]

 Well, I think the top of this little tree ought to be the Consensed
Membership.  Someone, however, has to be responsible for maintaining the
list of Consensed Members; the very simplest, most reality-reflecting way
to implement that is to just have that person be the top of the heirarchy.
 We can also have that abstracted so that there is a "Consensed Member"
class, and have that be administered by systems admins...

--S

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Feb 9, 2012 10:35 AM, "Jonathan Lassoff" <jof at thejof.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
> > <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <3 this discussion.
> > >
> > > I want to point out that decentralization and mistrust of power in the
> hands
> > > of individuals reccomends against putting control in the hands of
> treasurer,
> > > an individual. I <3 Kelly but she may want to do something else with
> her
> > > time eventually, and be replaced with someone who turns out to be an
> evil
> > > despot.
> >
> > Well, I think the reference here was to *some* officer of
> > Noisebridge-the-org, like the treasurer. It is the human in that
> > position who makes the determination as to who is and is not a member.
> >
> > --j
>
> Right, I just don't think a single individual is a good idea. I know the
> treasurer does keep the member rolls but we are talking about access, which
> is different and I argue should not be up to an individual.  We already
> have a regularly rotating group of trusted people, the board.
>



-- 
Shannon Lee
(503) 539-3700

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120209/c9a57535/attachment-0003.html>