[Noisebridge-discuss] Added proposal to current consensus items

[John Ellis]

Hi Kevin,

I concur that we should review the recent changes to membership, and
confirm these changes via consensus process. Some changes
were reluctantly agreed to as a trial, seemed to be morphed into permanent
changes through a patchwork of consensus.

I think there is a need for Associate Membership, especially if such
associate membership is tied to access privileges.

Cheers!
John



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<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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131210/35fc7452/attachment-0003.html>