[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
davidfine
d at vidfine.com
Thu Nov 21 19:00:46 UTC 2013
It's not even a bad proposal - but definitely needs consensus! I propose
we add a "double notice" trigger to consensus items that involve change
to the following things: membership requirements, fees, changes to the
consensus process itself, issues with the lease, issues where a lawsuit
is threatened. I'll polish that proposal and announce it at the Tuesday
meeting :)
--D
On 11/21/13, 10:19 AM, John Ellis wrote:
> David,
>
> That was my objection to the revised access control "no person except"
> consensus item was that it wasn't announced ahead of time as such and
> it'd been agreed 1-2 weeks previously to give the 2300-1000
> restrictions a trial run.
>
> My understanding (bugs, misinterpretation not withstanding) is that
> associate members may access the space anytime, without dues,
> upon receiving 4 verifiable signatures/endorsements from consensed,
> dues-paying full-members or established associate members. Full
> Consenus-Participating members still do pay dues at $40-80/m
>
> Cheers!
> John
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com
> <mailto:d at vidfine.com>> wrote:
>
> 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.
> --David
>
>
> 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.
>> --David
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> -Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- 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
>>> Cheers,
>>> --David
>>>
>>> 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 consensus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>>> --D
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131121/8620149a/attachment.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list