[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's talk about: "Rights" section

[Naomi Gmail]

Al, why are you acting in bad faith here? 

We agreed as a board to revisit the process by which these policy changes came about in the first place and YOU even proposed reverting them to put these changes through a more legitimized board discussion process.

Why are you putting these discussion items forth as if these changes were already in effect?  

Discuss as hypothetical all you want.  I encourage it.  Although why you didn't bother doing this /before/ voting on a massive board proposal that /could/ have been broken down into pieces like these is a great mystery.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There's a lot of talk on the mailing list about the latest board policies. I'd like to focus on segments individually so that discussion can happen about which parts people agree with an which parts people don't.
> 
> Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone and are open to change, just as they have always been.
> 
> This thread concerns the "Rights" section on https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.md which reads:
> 
> =====
> The following rights are afforded to members in good standing. If a member is delinquent, they are not entitled to these rights.
> 
> 1. A member is entitled to participate in membership meetings.
> 2. A member is entitled to participate in election of the board.
> 3. A member is entitled to be at Noisebridge at any time, to have the means to obtain entry to Noisebridge, and to bring guests to Noisebridge and to host them there while the member is also present.
> 5. A member is entitled to access the list of all persons who are members.
> =====
> 
> My commentary: I don't have a problem with most of these. I can see potential problems with part 1 though: I know Kevin and others have expressed that they think anyone at the space, member or not, should be able to participate at the meetings.
> 
> I could see member meetings being "members-only" if the barriers to membership were greatly lowered. As it is right now though, I think the bar to become a member is still to high and should be lowered. I'd be open to revoking/rewording this part of this section.
> 
> Another potential issue is with number 3. It might be easy to miss paying dues (though online payments can make this less likely), but I wouldn't want a member to feel like they couldn't access the space because of a short term slipup. (Though the item doesn't say they *can't* come into the space, nor that they couldn't be the guest of another member. But I'd like some softer language on that.)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/f16fae21/attachment-0003.html>