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

[davidfine]

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
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131120/41a766f9/attachment-0003.html>