[Noisebridge-discuss] Added proposal to current consensus items

[Al Sweigart]

Just to clarify, this would get rid of the concept of associate members?
And would not convert them to being members? Would they still (technically)
be able to come to Noisebridge on their own?

Am I right in saying that basically the idea of having associate members
was to 1) make it easy to become an associate member since no single person
could block it (rather, you'd have to have a unanimous vote to block
someone) and 2) on the other side, associate members couldn't unilaterally
block consensus items?

It did always feel like a hack to me. I'd rather just have the regular
members all become associate members since blocking is such a nuclear
option, causing people to circumvent the consensus process entirely (which
leads to drama).

-Al


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Madelynn Martiniere
<mmartiniere at gmail.com>wrote:

> Kevin, I agree with this consensus item 100%. Definitely think there's
> more consideration needed on Associate Membership.
>
> Since neither Associate Member or Member has to pay dues anymore, the
> distinction is irrelevant.
>
> Issues of security in the space should be resolved with hardware changes
> (additional security) rather than membership. Noisebridge, like any other
> hackerspace, is for members and guests, and should be treated accordingly.
>
> I caution against the distinction between the two membership types,
> because it limits the pool of those participating in consensus, leading to
> a more political (aka not representative) and less productive consensus
> process. While not all members will want to contribute to the consensus
> process, good to give them all the opportunity.
>
> Just my two cents. Happy to discuss further with anyone offline.
>
> Cheers,
> Madelynn
>
>   Kevin Schiesser <bfb at riseup.net>
>  December 10, 2013 8:48 AM
>  Text:
> "Noisebridge should attach an expiration period of 90 days, beginning
> October 29, 2013, to the consensus decision to create an Associate Member
> role<https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_10_29#Proposal_to_create_an_Associate_Member_role_and_limit_access_to_Noisebridge_24.2F7_to_Member.2C_Associate_Member_and_thoes_hosted_by_M_and_AM>.
> All subsequent mutations of the original consensus should be brought for a
> second consensus, beginning February 4, 2014. "
>
> See https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_Consensus_Items for details.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131210/b193a6a9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131210/b193a6a9/attachment.jpg>