[Noisebridge-discuss] Questions and Concerns with the Proposal to Strike All Members from the Roles
hicksu at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 23:44:59 UTC 2014
I am also concerned and confused by this proposal. (Maybe I am unclear what
is supposed to be consensed on.)
The summary of the proposal from the Current Consensus Items page is "Let's
reboot membership at Noisebridge". This doesn't explain much but the
informal title is "Striking all members from the Roles".
If this is all that is proposed, I don't think that we should strike all
the members from the roles. I don't think this accomplishes anything worth
the time, effort, and discussion needed to put "Membership" back together
afterward, especially with out the procedure in place before the proposal
is consensed. It is unclear how the community be improved by removing the
existing members. Members who aren't participating have already removed
themselves from the active community, Members who don't pay dues are on
hiatus and cannot block or proxy block. Members who are paying their dues
are participating at Noisebridge, even if it is only by paying dues. It
seems like this is already a decent enough setup and Members who are
inactive in the space could always become active Members again,
circumstances change for all of us.
Still I think there is more going on here than the proposal states.
According to the meeting notes I found there are some other concerns that
are driving this proposal, i.e. proxy blocks, new "trust" relationships,
making it easier to clean up the member list by deleting it, and others but
I don't think I can address them without understanding why they matter in
this context. In general I do not seeing the connection between these
issues and this proposal.
If there are particular members that should be removed from the member list
then this should be proposed instead.
I trust the proposer of this item a great deal so I expect that the
incomplete state of this proposal is probably an artifact of the meeting
process, but in its current condition I think this idea is still at the
discussion item stage and should be removed from the Current Consensus
Also, I think Slack would be a better place for this discussion and
development, instead of the Tuesday meeting.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
> Dear Noisebridge,
> It was proposed last week that Noisebridge should strike all members
> from the roles . The reasons stated include :
> 1) We have 40 or so people who essentially have, "stock options in a job
> they never show up to work for".
> 2) The only power w/ membership is consensus-blocking ability. The
> observed behavior is people sending in "proxy blocks" without having
> been present for discussion. Some are great, some are bullshit.
> 3) What does it mean to have 50ish members that never show up or who pop
> in every now and again?
> My questions and concerns:
> 1) To add a new member to the roles requires two member sponsors and the
> consensus of Noisebridge. What's the kernel to repopulate the member
> roles w/o members to consense on new ones?
> 2) With regard to number 2 above, I need some more convincing that
> Noisebridge has seen sufficient numbers of bullshit proxy blocks to
> warrant the proposed action. Can we produce a list documenting proxy
> blocks in the past year? And scrutinize the list to discern the bullshit
> proxy blocks from the good proxy blocks?
> 3) What is consensus with a quorum of zero?
> A concerned denizen of the Peoples' Republic of Nosiebridge
>  https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_consensus_items
>  https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014_10_07
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss