[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Meeting 10/17/2017

Fri Oct 20 07:33:08 UTC 2017

>From the Noisebridge Wiki on Consensus:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
"In order to block consensus, a member must be physically present at a meeting.
If a member is not physically present at the meeting, they may attempt
to find another member in good standing who is willing to act as proxy
on their behalf. "

I brought this item up at 3 consecutive meetings:
First, as a "small c" item on 10/3/2017,
second week as a "big C" item on 10/10/2017
and thirdly as "voting big C" item on 10/17/2017
I took the time out of my extremely busy schedule and with my host of
disabilities to be present at all 3 meetings.  At no point did anyone
or their proxy block this item.

I was asked for clarification on my proposal and I gave it over the
discussion.  There was confusion around:

1) if the money will go to Noisebridge members (it will not, per
sensible-ness and agreed consensus)
2) if money would come from general fund or equipment fund (general
consensus at proposal for 10/10/2017 meeting was to use the general
fund).
3) what the money will go to (it is for parts and outside paid labor
as needed, discussed again and agreed to in the meetings).

at no point did anyone say they blocked this item.  On 10/15/2017 John S. said,
"I hope you can take another look at this process as not people saying
"no," but people saying "yes, but specifically what and how."

This makes sense, so I have been working hard to answer questions on
the "what" and "how."

To try and block this item now, after weeks of hard work and going
through proper Noisebridge procedure, with no attendance at any
meetings, without clearly expressing on NB-discuss that you would
block it, or attempting to even have someone be your proxy to block
it, is very unexcellent.  I do not agree that this is the way
Noisebridge functions.

I'd love to hear input from others.  The Noisebridge wiki seems quite
clear on how the consensus process works, but maybe I missed
something?  For the past 7 years I have been coming to Noisebridge I
remember consensus being made at meetings, with physical people (incl.
proxies) present.  Someone being present at a meeting to block the
item has been a requirement for as long as I can remember.

-Zach

On 10/19/17, Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that this conversation was ongoing.
>
> Does anyone know where the consensus proposal text is available for review?
>
> Trent
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:46 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Zach,
>>
>> I have some qualms about this being passed off as consensus when there
>> were clearly concerns about allocating money from the general fund that
>> members (including myself) shared outside of the meeting. I don’t believe
>> that true consensus includes just 100% of people present at a meeting,
>> but
>> 100% of the community. I have an ongoing obligation that keeps me from
>> attending Tuesday meetings, but even if I did not, the meetings are not
>> the
>> only place where consensus is reached. The vast majority of discussion
>> typically takes place outside of the meeting.
>>
>> My practice when proposing consensus items, especially when they involve
>> spending money, is to make a good faith effort to get broad feedback and
>> revise proposals to address concerns and clarify specific details.
>> Whether
>> or not someone is physically present at the meeting is not really
>> pertinent.
>>
>> I respect the goal of this proposal and look forward to working on
>> repairing the elevator with funds already set aside. As far as
>> immediately
>> allocating additional money from the general fund to the elevator repair
>> fund, I do not believe we have a true consensus on that decision, as
>> reflected by the long conversations on -discuss.
>>
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The "large C" consensus item that I proposed at the Noisebridge
>> > meeting on 10/10/2017 with consensus reached on 10/17/17 was to
>> > allocate a minimum of $400 per year from the Noisebridge general fund
>> > towards elevator repairs.  This can be verified by all the people
>> > present who were 100% in support of this item (as far as I know, no
>> > one spoke out against it and many spoke up in support).
>> >
>> > Any money available beyond that is great.  I am glad that the DBI is
>> > requiring NB to spend money ($200) for ADA access, but this does not
>> > necessarily have to go to the elevator.
>> >
>> > The money that Phillip is planning to donate ($720) to be matched by
>> > the equipment fund ($720) is not yet available and is a separate issue
>> > to this consensus item.
>> >
>> > Hopefully that offers some clarification.  If anyone has any other
>> > questions or was at the meetings and feels this is inaccurate, please
>> > let us know.
>> >
>> > -Zach
>> >
>> >> On 10/19/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Another interpretation: The proposal says at least $400 should be
>> spent, but
>> >> we can spend more if there are more funds available. Since we have
>> >> $200
>> in
>> >> the fund already, $720 more incoming, and $920 in matching grants
>> available
>> >> from the equipment fund, we could spend $1,840 on elevator repair this
>> year.
>> >> This is also just my read on it and would want to have a sense of
>> >> other
>> >> people’s thoughts.
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 2:04 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi John,
>> >>>
>> >>> I am only aware of the 2017-10-10 meeting notes writeup-
>> >>>
>> >>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_10#Elevat
>> or_Repair_Fund
>> >>>
>> >>> Others may be aware of another version.
>> >>>
>> >>> Kevin
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Can someone link to the actual text of the consensus proposal?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 1:32 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Greetings, NB-
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A meeting has occurred.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Most notable, Zach's consensus item proposal from last week, of
>> creating
>> >>>>> a set-aside for elevator repair from the general fund, was read
>> >>>>> again
>> >>>>> and has gone into effect without objection.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Meeting Summary-
>> >>>>>  *   Announcements: 2017-10-30: Google "Playcrafting" game dev
>> >>>>> expo;
>> >>>>> ADA compliance floor markings added; City College is adding maker
>> >>>>> spaces
>> >>>>>  *   Finances: we have 9 months rent in the bank
>> >>>>>  *   New members: open apps: Nicole (3rd week), Merlin (4th week;
>> >>>>> deferred: not present)
>> >>>>>  *   New philanthropists: open apps: Kelly A (1st week)
>> >>>>>  *   Consensus Items: Zach's proposal to allocate general funds for
>> >>>>> elevator repair was consensed ($400 to start)
>> >>>>>  *   Discussion Items: (none)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_17
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -Kevin
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>