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

[davidfine]

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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131120/1c19d6fa/attachment-0003.html>