[Noisebridge-discuss] Added proposal to current consensus items

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Dec 11 01:34:27 UTC 2013

The overzealousness is probably a feature (though I think a problematic
one). The reason Noisebridge has such a tightly-shut gate for membership is
because any single member can block consensus items, so you don't want to
allow someone in who will overuse it.

Then again, that means Noisebridge has a grueling application process that
keeps people away (I know plenty of people who've been at the space for
years but have never become members). Noisebridge is one of the most
excluding organizations I've ever been in. :(


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Madelynn Martiniere
<mmartiniere at gmail.com>wrote:

> My understanding of the proposal is to re-evaluate Associate Membership in
> February, so no definition of what happens if we get rid of them has been
> provided.
> I think having consensus on new members is pretty overzealous. Some
> combination of the two processes might be better (4 week trial period,
> written statement on the wiki, and 4 sponsors seems appropriate to me).
> Cheers,
> Madelynn
>   Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>  December 10, 2013 5:12 PM
> 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
>    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
> --
> Madelynn Martiniere
> Community Engineer. Entrepreneur. Geek.
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/madelynnmartiniere> | Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/creativetaboo>|
> Email <madelynn at women2.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131210/334ce3c2/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/20131210/334ce3c2/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131210/334ce3c2/attachment-0001.jpg>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list