[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item

[James Sundquist]

J: I've found what I believe to be a bug, or exploit, in our consensus
process.  I've included links below and am looking for clarification.  The
topic I want to specifically address is the elimination of membership dues,
which is said to have happened last week[2].  My understanding is that
membership dues were eliminated by amendments made to Tom's last consensed
proposal[6]. This was explained to me a couple days ago in-person while
visiting the space, but it confused me as I'd heard nothing about it before
the meeting, and I'm unable to find any reference to the elimination of
membership dues in current consensus items[7], previous consensus items[6],
in any previous posting to nb-discuss (except one noted below) or
nb-announce.  I could also find no mention of this in either 11/05 or 11/12
meeting notes.

"All the decisions being made have been
month-long consensus items, documented in meeting notes as usual and
discussed extensively on the mailing list..." [1]

J: What really sticks out to me about this is the membership dues were
removed by an amendment added onto the previous proposal, which was A) not
being discussed as a radical change to the proposal, which would require
re-submission or an additional two week process according to our rules of
consensus[5] and B) not possible to discuss outside of that exact meeting
because it fell under the grey area of a proposal in it's second week of
discussion.
  I'm concerned that the elimination of membership dues was done in a way
that circumvents the need for actual notice to anyone outside the physical
meeting.  In essence it is impossible for any member to block who is not
physically present, because they cannot be aware of the amendment outside
of what has been publicly posted (or not).  Does this specific amendment
count as a radical change?

"John and I both stood aside the first time around,when 2300-1000 access
control was consensed. When it became 24 hour law of the land I spent 2
hours airing concerns. Supporters of the proposal addressed my concerns
and we agreed on amendments (eliminate member dues and eliminate the need
for Consensus to become an associate member). I allowed myself to be
involved and committed to the process, because that's how I thought
consensus should work..." [2]

"The wording of the consensus proposal made in the first week can be
altered during the consensus process of the second meeting, although
radical changes in the sense or impact of a proposal require a resubmitted
proposal, and a new two week process." - A note on the Consensus project
from our wiki page[5]

Now I want to add the link to last week's meeting notes.[3]
And the week prior [4]
And our wiki page on Consensus [5]

[1]
https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040382.html
[2]
https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-November/040411.html
[3]https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_11_12
[4]https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_11_05
[5]https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus
[6]https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Items_History
[7]https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_Consensus_Items
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131119/0aab3181/attachment-0002.html>