[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal to no longer require fees as a condition of membership

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 19:40:08 UTC 2013

David, you are unilaterally declaring a part of the consensus that was
reached by the members last week to be invalid. You don't have that
authority, the membership does.

If you care about discussing proposals before making decisions, then bring
up the validity of last week's consensus for discussion. Don't just pretend
it doesn't count and we have to do a do-over.


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Cheers,
> --David
> 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?
> > -Tom
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > 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/20131121/2916a6e0/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list