[Noisebridge-discuss] Added proposal to current consensus items

[bfb]

It follows the same path with the same rigor that prior great changes to Noisebridge SOP followed. 

Specifically switching out the door buzzer with a keypad and creating an anti harassment policy both had trial periods requiring a second consensus at a later date. I believe this to be an effective strategy. 

-------- Original message --------
From: Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> 
Date:12/11/2013  10:29  (GMT-08:00) 
To: bfb <bfb at riseup.net> 
Cc: Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com>,NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net> 
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Added proposal to current consensus items 

This seems similar to the "invalidate the associates member" item from a couple weeks ago, except it puts the expiration date in the future. Wouldn't it be more prudent to simply revisit the topic at that date to see if people's feelings have changed at that point in time?

On a personal note: The two-tiered member structure does make me uncomfortable. Associate members were created because it's so hard to become a capital-m member (ugg, a term I dislike), but it's hard to become a Member because it grants that person the Nuclear Option of blocking. I think if we address that, then the member issue gets solved as well.


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, bfb <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
I added a line to the text to clarify. The intent is to create a trial period where Noisebridge can hack, experiment and tweak, in good faith, the associate member consensus made on 10-29-2013.

If no second consensus can be reached in February, the associate member role goes away, member dues are reinstated, and Noisebridge is open to the public 24/7.


-------- Original message --------
From: Gregory Dillon 
Date:12/10/2013 17:59 (GMT-08:00) 
To: Kevin Schiesser 
Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Added proposal to current consensus items 

Could you clarify what this means?  Its seems well intended, convoluted and imprecise.  Does it suggest retroactively doing something in the future?   Just what is the "original consensus"  I could guess, but its not clear.    What is a mutation? I don't want to be a mutation.    Isn't $date + 90 before Feb 4, and if so what happens when that bell rings?,  do the Associate Members transform into Capital M members or are they outsiders?  I can see the point of wanting to review a certain consensus item, but I can't make out what this would do.




On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Schiesser <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
Text:
"Noisebridge should attach an expiration period of 90 days, beginning October 29, 2013, to the consensus decision to create an Associate Member role. 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




-- 
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/20131211/b6dc347c/attachment-0001.html>