[Noisebridge-discuss] amendments to membership proposal - associate members and 24/7 hours

Hannah Grimm dharlette at gmail.com
Wed Oct 23 00:44:33 UTC 2013

All you need to defeat "consensus-minus-one" is a single friend.  Two
abusers working together (or an abuser and a patsy) completely break the

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM, John Ellis <neurofog at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Hannah,
> I'm not opposed to multi-tier membership. I am opposed to asking people to
> leave after 11:00 PM when they are otherwise making excellent use of the
> space.
> Also, when a Member blocks a Consensus item, the expectation is that they
> discuss their concerns and if they still feel strongly against it, then
> actually block it.
> If a member is up for banning by consensus, they can't block themselves
> from being banned so its "consensus minus one"
> -John
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I think the new rule is great (and this is someone who is not
>> a member).  I'm also just fine with there being a sort of "junior member"
>> state that is enough to be allowed in after hours, which should be easier
>> to achieve and does NOT have the right to block.  The ability to block is
>> an incredibly powerful one, and it only takes two jerkoffs with Membership
>> to cause havoc and defend each other from attempts to remove them.  We need
>> to be careful about handing that out; we've had issues with people who
>> don't really understand consensus blocking things in a way that is highly
>> detrimental to the community.  I like there being three levels: visitors,
>> who need someone to accompany them, members, who can visit without a
>> chaperone, and Members, who can block and who pay (because paying gives us
>> a way of getting rid of them if they're ever late on their dues).
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Alan Rockefeller <
>> alanrockefeller at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I suggest we keep the policy and perhaps expand it to all hours, but add
>>> “unless they are hacking something“.
>>> Or add the language “consider not enforcing this on people who are
>>> clearly being productive.“
>>> I love the idea of kicking out the bums and have kicked a more than a
>>> few out myself, I just hate to see a rigid one size fits all policy applied
>>> to people who are using the space for its intended purpose.
>>> I worry that people who are asked to leave while being excellent might
>>> not return.   That is not the intent of this policy at all, but it is bound
>>> to happen given the current language.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20131022/13165e21/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list