[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
d at vidfine.com
Thu Nov 21 17:55:04 UTC 2013
In the future, yes. But I need to bring your focus back to the present
and insist that a major change was made to the membership policy without
most of the membership having any opportunity to participate in the
consensus process. Decisions that are made without going through the
consensus process don't mean anything. The way to actually change the
membership fee requirement would be to submit it as a separate proposal.
On 11/20/13, 4:47 PM, Al Sweigart wrote:
> It sounds like in the future, members at meetings should be more
> conservative in what amount of alteration should be considered worth
> postponing the consensus. I can get behind that.
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com
> <mailto:d at vidfine.com>> wrote:
> I appreciate that decision. Al is correct that there is *some*
> room for changing the wording of a proposal so long as it isn't
> radically different. If you're calling something a 'stretch',
> that's one sign it may be outside that scope :)
> This is not a criticism of the proposal per se, but process is
> especially important on decisions that affect our rent-making
> engine. On some level, the slow and frustrating parts of the
> consensus process are the very reasons we chose to use it.
> On 11/20/13, 2:33 PM, bfb wrote:
>> The consensus of the meeting was that the proposal, as amended,
>> was not radically different enough to warrant another week of
>> discussion. The consensus page on the Noisebridge wiki also
>> suggests that consensus is decision-centric.
>> I retrospect, insisting that the proposal in question come back
>> the next week for further discussion, seems like the best idea. I
>> don't know that we can create policy to prevent such happenings
>> in the future. The process depends on a mutual understanding of
>> what is and is not radically different or reasonably similar. My
>> strengthened position is to always err on the side of patience.
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: davidfine
>> Date:11/20/2013 15:50 (GMT-06:00)
>> To: Al Sweigart
>> Cc: noisebridge-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of
>> a Consensus Item
>> I am not arguing that members can retroactively block consensus.
>> I'm stating that consensus can only be reached on proposals in
>> the form they were submitted to the list for prior review. In
>> other words, you can't submit a proposal to save kittens and then
>> add language minutes before the vote to allow an oil pipeline
>> though the bathrooms. Proposals are submitted to the list first
>> so that members can review them without being physically present
>> at a Tuesday meeting. That's not my opinion, that's a description
>> of the process. https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
>> On 11/20/13, 1:25 PM, Al Sweigart wrote:
>>> There is no rule or precedence against making adjustments to
>>> consensus items. You are arguing that members can declare that
>>> they are blocking a consensus item even after it has passed
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com
>>> <mailto:d at vidfine.com>> wrote:
>>> tldr; There are no riders allowed on consensus items.
>>> You're mistaken. It's not allowed to tack things on to a
>>> consensus proposal or "stretch" them at all. Wouldn't that
>>> make you feel like you're circumventing the process that we
>>> use to make reasonable decisions?
>>> You can reach consensus on something as it was posted to the
>>> list or try again next week. You shot yourself in the foot
>>> trying to rush it through, you'll need to follow procedure
>>> before it counts for anything.
>>> You could make the argument that those parts which weren't
>>> altered on the day of the meeting are still valid. But it is
>>> an absolute certainty that membership fee requirements have
>>> not been altered by the vote.
>>> Not to comment on the quality of the proposal. It might get
>>> support in the future.
>>> Best of luck,
>>> On 11/20/13, 8:14 AM, bfb wrote:
>>>> James, I agree that eliminating the requirement of member
>>>> dues as a part of the associate member decision was a
>>>> stretch. It was topical in the context of a
>>>> member/associate member contrast. I would not have
>>>> consensed on a proposal that privileges dues with full
>>>> participation in consensus. ... ... please jump in and
>>>> correct me if I am mistaken.
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss