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

[Curtis Gagliardi]

Second class by any other name...  Anyway, it beats being third class like
us non associates.


On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131213/969cf765/attachment.html>