[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus proposal to invalidate 2013-10-15 consensus item due to bad process

[davidfine]

You can propose to invalidate the decision, but don't do it for my sake.
I'm not opposed to the decision, although I insist that it's not valid
until its been through the proper consensus process. The debate you and
I are engaged in is about whether items passed with bad process should
need to be voided, or whether they're invalid in the first place.

The other point of contention is that  you consider members
_at_the_meeting to be the final word on whether changes _they_introduced
are major or minor. I consider that dangerous, and everyone reading now
has an example of how that can shoot us in the foot.

If you think this thread is annoying, imagine the shit-storm it could
cause in the future! It is indeed a bug in our process, and I'm
confident we'll have it patched shortly. 
Consensus is fun, eh?
--David

On 11/21/13, 1:21 PM, Al Sweigart wrote:
> On 2013-10-15 an item was passed by consensus that David Fine and
> James Sundquist point out may have been changed to the point that an
> additional week of discussion should have been necessary.
>
> This proposal would invalidate the 2013-10-15 consensus item about
> Associate Membership & Dues Requirements so that this week of
> discussion can take place, and then the item can be put back up for
> consensus.
>
> -Al
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131121/2f278061/attachment-0001.html>