[Noisebridge-discuss] a couple of things from the meeting today, on consensus and time

Hannah Grimm dharlette at gmail.com
Wed Jan 8 08:25:01 UTC 2014

I actually really like Dana's solution.  That sounds pretty excellent.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana-lists at sonic.net> wrote:

> I'm putting this idea out there as people seemed intrigued by it at the
> meeting! This is the consensus process we used when I lived in a large
> housing cooperative (~30 people at any given time), which I don't think is
> terribly uncommon:
> We had weekly meetings and managed by consensus similar to Noisebridge.
> Agree, stand-aside, block. Three stand-asides or a block (uncommon) stopped
> a proposal from moving forward.
> When an issue could not find resolution (meaning it was brought up
> multiple times and blocked) it would come up at a quarterly membership
> meeting, where it would require a 75% super majority to pass. In the
> several years I lived there this happened only 3 or 4 times, the vast
> majority of contentious issues were resolved before coming to a vote.
> (I also think if NB adopts something like this, it's worth looking at the
> membership process and possibly erasing the distinction between members and
> associate members.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140108/790cbc7f/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list