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

[Andy Isaacson]

This proposal seems pretty reasonable to me too, on first glance.

-andy

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:25:01AM -0800, Hannah Grimm wrote:
> 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
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss