[Noisebridge-discuss] Kevin's proposal to expire the Associate Member role.

Gregory Dillon gregorydillon at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 22:53:02 UTC 2013

please don’t call me second class, I’m happy with my associate membership,

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, bfb <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:

> Al, please consider an alternative interpretation of this proposal based
> on the following claims.
> Great changes to noisebridge standard operating protocol:
> 1. benefit from a trial period
> 2. benefit from significant (unanimous) community buy-in
> 3. benefit from the learnings made during the trial period
> In addition, this particular policy suffers from perceived lack of
> legitimacy due to the small present member count (4) and poor adherence to
> process (member dues amendment).
> Finally, the proposal in question follows precedent set by the button to
> keypad consensus and the anti harassment policy.
> -Kevin
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Al Sweigart
> Date:12/13/2013 13:52 (GMT-08:00)
> To: noisebridge-discuss
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Kevin's proposal to expire the Associate
> Member role.
> So Kevin proposed a consensus item at the last meeting that would expire
> the Associate Member role on January 29 unless it passed a second round of
> consensus before then. This is basically the same as the previous consensus
> item that was blocked on 12/3 to invalidate the original Associate Member
> consensus item, except the invalidation takes place in the future with the
> opportunity to prevent the invalidation of the consensus item by re-passing
> it through consensus. (Insert Inception joke here.)
> I'd like to talk about two things:
> First, I think that Noisebridge having two tiers of membership is kind of
> crap, especially for all the non-hierarchical rhetoric that is preached.
> Associate members are second-class citizens that can't block, meaning they
> have no power whatsoever in actual decision making. (And influence is no
> substitute for power.)
> But I also understand why it was created, rather than just easily let
> people become Noisebridge members. Being a member gives someone the Nuclear
> Option of a unilateral veto, which the membership wants to be very careful
> with. But this ends up excluding a lot of people (again, which goes against
> the "radical inclusiveness" rhetoric we preach). Sam and Robin's
> memberships getting blocked at the last meeting are examples of this.
> Second, Kevin's proposal is a hack. With Noisebridge's current political
> structure, it's far easier to block something then pass it. So if you want
> to abolish Associate Members, it's easier to add an expiration date which
> would need consensus to avoid, rather than try to get consensus to directly
> abolish it. Kevin's proposal effectively tries to do the same thing as the
> last proposal, but in an indirect way so that it will be less likely to be
> blocked.
> Consensus is problematic. It encourages Noisebridge to be closed off to
> new people, it creates an "old guard" of members who hold the actual power,
> and it encourages people to circumvent it anyway. It's no wonder why
> there's so much drama at Noisebridge.
> Any thoughts on consensus, associate members, and/or Kevin's proposal?
> -Al
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131213/5eba6934/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list