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

[John Ellis]

David,

That was my objection to the revised access control "no person except"
consensus item was that it wasn't announced ahead of time as such and it'd
been agreed 1-2 weeks previously to give the 2300-1000 restrictions a trial
run.

My understanding (bugs, misinterpretation not withstanding) is that
associate members may access the space anytime, without dues,
upon receiving 4 verifiable signatures/endorsements from consensed,
dues-paying full-members or established associate members. Full
Consenus-Participating members still do pay dues at $40-80/m

Cheers!
John



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:

>  In the future, yes. But I need to bring your focus back to the present
> and insist that a major change was made to the membership policy without
> most of the membership having any opportunity to participate in the
> consensus process. Decisions that are made without going through the
> consensus process don't mean anything. The way to actually change the
> membership fee requirement would be to submit it as a separate proposal.
> --David
>
>
> On 11/20/13, 4:47 PM, Al Sweigart wrote:
>
> It sounds like in the future, members at meetings should be more
> conservative in what amount of alteration should be considered worth
> postponing the consensus. I can get behind that.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:
>
>>  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> 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
>>> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131121/2918d231/attachment-0003.html>