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

Sat Dec 14 15:29:31 UTC 2013

Based on the info below Al (and others) you did not have to block on the last meeting - you decided to be a proxy and block your right your decision, not a duty. The consensus page is quite clear on the topic. I'm not trying to play with words just pointing out very important fact that it is up to a member of Noisebridge to choose if he/she wants to be a proxy for someone, it is not a duty, even if that member is the only one at the meeting. So if the member disagrees with the notion of blocking he/she doesn't have to do so.

https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus

Only Noisebridge members in good standing may block consensus. 
	* In order to block consensus, a member must be physically present at a meeting. 
	* If a member is not physically present at the meeting, they may attempt to find another member in good standing who is willing to act 
as proxy on their behalf. 
	* If a member wishes to, they are free to proxy for the wishes of a guest who is not able block. Sincerely,

Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck

biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker

http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org

"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

On Saturday, December 14, 2013 11:51 AM, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com> wrote:

Since when the member present at the meeting has to carry out "blocking action" for another member(s) who is not present? As far as I know that was never mandatory, or is there another change of the "rule"? If you decided to block on someone's else behalf, it is your decision which should be well founded, isn't it? In a way it is nice to respect wish of person (member) who is not present but it is optional - which is good thing I think, again more social dedication is needed because no rule assuring to put the will through, someone has to say of their free will "well I will do it for you, but I do not have to". Important difference I believe.

Consensus is one of the virtues of Noiserbridge and great inspiration, definitely for me and I'm sure for many others. It has it's virtues and
 mishaps as everything.

Sincerely,

Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck

biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker

http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org

"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

On Saturday, December 14, 2013 9:18 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

Greg, I see. But I have to say, I'd rather no one be in that position. If someone else had been there and decided they didn't want to be the public face of a very unpopular proxy block, Tom could come back next week arguing that consensus had been bypassed. We'd be in the same position as with the associate members affair.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Gregory Dillon <gregorydillon at gmail.com> wrote:

Al,  I'll try again explaining my point of view, that  member have different properties, but are not for sure ranked 1st and 2nd.     Using your example of the last meeting.  your status as  a capital M, is mostly why you were obliged to be the public face of a very unpopular proxy block.   Anyone who was an associate member, was free from that type of pressure.
>
>
>My main point though is I am happy with my associate membership, and its not an obvious result that I'd be happier if I was a capital "M
>
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Kevin, the obvious difference between this proposal and the anti-harassment and keypad proposals (and going further back, the tor-node proposal) is that the expiration clauses were all part of a compromise for passing the *original* proposal. There is no precedent to adding an expiration date to a policy after the fact. What we *have* done before to undo policies is put forward a consensus proposal to directly undo them.
>>
>>
>>But I do agree, policies need to have a large amount of buy-in from the community to be seen as legitimate. That something could easily pass one week but not the next simply because a particular single person wasn't there to block is a big failure that's unique to the consensus process.
>>
>>
>>Gregory, last meeting I had to make a VERY unpopular block (as proxy for another member) on two memberships because I was the only capital-m Member (g'uh, I find that term distasteful) there. Even I wasn't in favor of blocking, meaning that it was unanimous of everyone there that Sam and Robin should have become members but that didn't happen due to consensus. And since associate members can't block, they'd never be able to dictate a decision like that. Second-class is exactly what that is. As JC loudly said that night, that's bullshit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>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 
>>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131214/0b34464c/attachment-0003.html>