[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 :)

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