[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal to no longer require fees as a condition of membership
d at vidfine.com
Thu Nov 21 18:18:41 UTC 2013
The discussion so far counts as announcing the proposal at a meeting. So
I'll submit it to the consensus process at next Tuesday's meeting. I'm
not going to block it, even though the idea worries me a bit. As long as
the full membership has an opportunity to participate, I'll support
whatever decision is reached.
On 11/21/13, 9:44 AM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> I think that our consensus process would be pretty weak if proposals
> couldn't mutate during the week that they're discussed.
> The goal of consensus (rather than democracy or whatnot) is to take a
> proposal and adjust it to address the preferences and concerns of
> everyone around the table until we find something which everyone
> present can live with. I've participated in plenty of consensus
> discussions in a variety of venues. In my experience, when complex,
> sophisticated, or interesting proposals are discussed, lots of
> amendment and adjustment is needed, and the final consensus is not
> something that any one person at the table would have guessed would be
> the final outcome.
> We have a practice of announcing a proposal at one meeting, then
> having the discussion of it at the next. I do not think that this
> should prevent us from having a real and vibrant discussion at the
> second meeting. I understand the purpose of the week's gap as
> providing notice to everyone in our community: this is what we'll be
> discussing next week, and if that topic is important to you, you
> should find a way to participate in the discussion.
> David Al and Kevin were discussing a sort of double-notice, or
> extended discussion. I think we could codify such a way of doing
> things like this:
> * week zero: announce the topic of discussion;
> * week one: discuss it and find provisional consensus, then announce that;
> * week two: without objection our provisional consensus is finally
> agreed, otherwise repeat week one.
> This seems like a reasonable idea to me. It makes the process longer,
> and might require participants to come to several meetings in a row,
> but it does mean that nobody is going to be so surprised at the
> outcome of a consensus discussion that they'll kick themself for not
> being there when something unexpected came up. I think I might suggest
> it next week.
> Other thoughts on this?
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss