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

[jarrod hicks]

I won't be able to make it to the meeting but I am fine with the proposal.
For reference, the text from the Consensus_Items_History is:

"Establish an Elevator Repair Fund. Proposed on 10.3.2017 Originally as
"small-c" and later on 10.10.2017. Establish a fund for repair and
maintenance of the Noisebridge Elevator. The fund established and agreed
upon should be a minimum of $400 per year drawn from the Noisebridge
General Fund. The funds are to be used for 2 purposes: 1) To hire
professional repair person(s) and 2) To pay for parts needed for the
Elevator to be safe and 100% functional. The funds are not to be used to
pay Noisebridge members who wish to do repairs."

I'd also be fine with it if, during the re-readings, the first two
sentences were removed from the proposal; I wouldn't consider it a
significant change.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:01 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Zach and I met in person today and we're all good. I want to apologize on
> the list as I did in person for writing that he was acting in bad faith,
> since the root of the issue is that our consensus process is poorly
> documented, leading to surprises and misunderstandings. That’s something
> that we should work on.
>
> Zach agreed to read out the finalized text at two more meetings (on top of
> the significant effort he’s already made) to make sure everyone feels good
> about all of the expected consensus processes being followed.
>
> I strongly support the consensus text written out here, and think it’s a
> great first step towards keeping the elevator permanently in good repair
> and improving accessibility in the space.
>
> Separate from the consensus item, we talked about the $200 that state law
> requires us to spend on accessibility improvements (20% of constuction
> costs for the SparkleForge). Zach suggested, and I agree, that it should be
> separated out as its own fund and an accessibility working group should
> decide how it’s spent, with strong priority in decision-making given to
> people who have greater accessibility needs. Folks who want to work on that
> should reach out to Zach.
>
> Best,
> John Shutt
>
> On Oct 22, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sending this Zach. I agree that this should be a consensus item
> and support it.
>
> The text should have been available at the first meeting notes, sent out
> on the mailing list, and then should not have changed between two
> consecutive meetings.
>
> Because the text was never made available to people outside the meetings,
> I think it should be read aloud this week and consensed on next week. You
> don't have to be there at any of those meetings. I volunteer to read it out
> this week and I can find someone for next week.
>
> In this way I think people will feel that they were able to discuss it and
> maybe we can improve it further, although that back and forth will take a
> little longer.
>
> In the meantime, we already have up to $1500 available for the elevator
> due to the donation and the matching funds from the equipment fund, so no
> one should feel like they can't hack on this critical infrastructure.
>
>
> Best,
> Trent
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The consensus item agreed upon at the meetings can be found here:
>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Items_History
>>
>> On 10/22/17, Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Zach,
>> >
>> > I know you have been typing a lot, can you please verify whether the
>> > consensus item text is as follows:
>> >
>> > Elevator Repair Fund
>> >
>> > *Zach proposes that NB set aside $400 per year for the purpose of
>> elevator
>> > repair costs. Any deductions from this fund can be recorded with
>> receipts
>> > and sent to noisebridge-discuss or the Wiki*
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Trent
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John S:
>> >>
>> >> > I am not able to attend Tuesday meetings, as I said, because of a
>> >> recurring
>> >> > commitment.
>> >>
>> >> This is good to know now.  The first time you mentioned this was only
>> >> a few days ago after a consensus was reached at the 3rd NB meeting.
>> >> As the wiki states, you can send a proxy member to block items you
>> >> don't agree with.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the
>> >> > elevator. I would be willing to spend more than that if there’s a
>> need.
>> >> You
>> >> > haven’t come up with any plan for how to spend the money.
>> >>
>> >> That's great.  You never asked for a "plan" for how to spend the
>> >> money.  I can not make a "plan" for where the money will go for future
>> >> elevator repairs (I cannot predict how and what will break).  You
>> >> asked for what the funds would be used for and I told you about many
>> >> things that currently need repairs.  The gate needs thousands of
>> >> dollars in repairs after being cut open by the fire department.  Now
>> >> that the money is secured and made available by consensus I can look
>> >> into different companies, their rates, and their quotes for doing
>> >> repairs.
>> >>
>> >> >That’s what this
>> >> > discussion was for, which you don’t want to have.
>> >>
>> >> I've been answering your Qs every single day, and have been fully
>> >> engaged in the discussion since day one.  I'm not sure where you get
>> >> the notion that I don't want to discuss things.
>> >>
>> >> > I just want an actual good faith consensus
>> >> > process.
>> >>
>> >> Me too, that is why I followed the NB Consensus guidelines.  That is
>> >> why I spent my time and energy to come to meetings, have real life
>> >> discussions with people, and answer lots of emails and questions here.
>> >> That is why I worked my ass off talking to people on multiple
>> >> occasions and organizing for help many months before even bringing
>> >> this up as a "big-C" Consensus item.  That is why I worked my ass off
>> >> getting to three meetings in a row and answering Qs and talking to
>> >> people in the community regularly.
>> >>
>> >> >you didn’t present the same
>> >> > proposal at each meeting, and didn’t have a clear text of a proposal.
>> >>
>> >> I did.  I posted to the NB Discuss on 10/11:
>> >>
>> >> " I request that we establish an Elevator Repair Fund at Noisebridge.
>> >> This fund could be as modest or ambitious as people like, but I
>> >> believe a minimum of $400 per annual year would do a great deal to
>> >> benefit the space."
>> >>
>> >> At the meeting I learned about the difference between General Fund and
>> >> Equipment Fund, so it was agreed on at the meetings that the elevator
>> >> was a "must need" item and that funds should come from the General
>> >> Fund.
>> >>
>> >> Per answering your questions, I also clarified that the money would be
>> >> used for:
>> >>
>> >> 1) to hire /outside/ professional help with elevator repair (from a
>> >> private company or union that would issue a receipt)
>> >> 2) to purchase parts for the elevator (with receipts)
>> >>
>> >> The proposal is very clear.  I find that I am repeating myself.  What
>> >> is the "clear plan" that you want?  It's cut and dry.  Now that the
>> >> money is available I can lookup companies and look into more parts to
>> >> do repairs.
>> >>
>> >> > As I said, there was already $400 in funds available before the
>> meeting
>> >> > where you claimed consensus
>> >>
>> >> Not true.  At no point did you say "we have $400 available right now
>> >> for elevator repairs and we will always have $400/year available for
>> >> elevator repairs." This consensus item was not brought up just to
>> >> solve the problem now.  It is to have at least some money available,
>> >> consistently, for repairing the elevator at NB.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you want to use state-required ADA money solely for the
>> >> elevator without discussion about other disability needs at NB (or
>> >> with other disabled people at NB) is problematic.
>> >>
>> >> > I think you’re stuck in an old model of open conflict at meetings
>> >>
>> >> There was zero conflict at meetings.  Only total agreement that the
>> >> Elevator Repair Fund is a good idea.
>> >>
>> >> > and on-discuss to make decisions at Noisebridge.
>> >>
>> >> There wasn't any conflict on NB-Discuss, I was answering your
>> >> questions.  I only said you were being unexcellent when you emailed
>> >> /after/ consensus was reached at 3 meetings:
>> >>
>> >> >I have some qualms about this being passed off as consensus...
>> >> >Whether or not someone is physically present at the meeting is not
>> >> > really
>> >> pertinent.
>> >>
>> >> This is untrue and is an attempt to derail how consensus works at NB.
>> >> That is unexcellent and it bothers me a lot.  People worked very, very
>> >> hard over the years to develop the consensus process we have today.
>> >> That is why there is a clear wiki page describing how it works and why
>> >> we talk about it at the meetings you choose not to attend.
>> >>
>> >> > I think a big part of the
>> >> > communication issue is you refusing to use Slack, which has smoothed
>> >> over so
>> >> > much discussion over the past two years.
>> >>
>> >> I have already explained that I have disabilities that make using the
>> >> computer hard for me.  That is why I come to meetings and have
>> >> person-to-person interactions with people - assuming the elevator is
>> >> working and I can come into the space.  There should be no
>> >> discrimination against someone for not using an application like
>> >> Slack.  I am part of the community just like everyone else.
>> >>
>> >> > You have not put together
>> >> > any kind of spending plan. You haven’t clarified in any written
>> >> > proposal
>> >> > where funds would come from. The only text presented, which is in the
>> >> form
>> >> > of a meeting summary, is vague and confusing. You don’t want to
>> discuss
>> >> > where money should come from
>> >>
>> >> See above.  I have said over and over again in meetings and on
>> >> NB-Discuss that the money should come from the General Fund.  This was
>> >> agreed on at the last 2 meetings. Have you tried talking to other
>> >> people present at the meetings?
>> >>
>> >> See the two items above, again, for where the money should go.  That
>> >> you think this is confusing is not my fault.  I cannot create a
>> >> spending plan when I don't know what will break in the future.  Again,
>> >> this money is to be made available for *future repairs* needed as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >> > And this is all a moot point because the only actual spending
>> proposal
>> >> > you’ve made is for parts that I already purchased and picked up at
>> the
>> >> > PO
>> >> > box the day they arrived to deliver to the space. You have not made
>> any
>> >> > other specific requests for funds.
>> >>
>> >> Again, I have been super busy repairing the elevator, answering Qs,
>> >> and going to meetings.  I have not had time to call elevator companies
>> >> for quotes.  The elevator breaks often, it needs parts all the time
>> >> and in the future will need more.  We need money put away for that.
>> >> Why is this such a hard concept?
>> >>
>> >> > If your goal is keeping the elevator in good repair, lots of
>> discussion
>> >> and
>> >> > community excitement and talk about fundraising is the way to do
>> that.
>> >>
>> >> That is what I have been doing since JULY.  Sadly, some people did not
>> >> decide to take this problem seriously until I raised a "Big-C" item,
>> >> which is sad.  For those of us with disabilities, the elevator has
>> >> been a major issue for a long time.
>> >>
>> >> I was trapped in the elevator for the 10 year anniversary when I came
>> >> to present for 5mof.  Me and my friend were stuck in there for almost
>> >> 20 minutes.  When I came for Chelsea Manning's talk it was still
>> >> broken, and someone had to carry Liz's scooter up a flight of steps.
>> >> I had to miss this talk because I had to spend over 5 hours doing
>> >> elevator repairs, because after 2 months the elevator was still broken
>> >> and no one was fixing it.  I have been having lots of discussions with
>> >> people for many months.  Only after that failed did I bring this up as
>> >> a "little-C" and "big-C" consensus item.
>> >>
>> >> > Starting a big public email battle
>> >>
>> >> I'm just trying to get funds for the elevator.  I have no interest in
>> >> starting a battle.  I would like access to Noisebridge just like
>> >> anyone else.
>> >>
>> >> > You have not once attempted to reach out to me individually
>> >>
>> >> Fair enough, I will contact you off list.
>> >>
>> >> >I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the
>> >> elevator.
>> >>
>> >> Fantastic.  That makes much of this discussion a moot point then.
>> >>
>> >> -Zach
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10/22/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Zach,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am not able to attend Tuesday meetings, as I said, because of a
>> >> recurring
>> >> > commitment.
>> >> >
>> >> > I’m not unwilling to spend $400 from the general fund to repair the
>> >> > elevator. I would be willing to spend more than that if there’s a
>> need.
>> >> You
>> >> > haven’t come up with any plan for how to spend the money. That’s what
>> >> this
>> >> > discussion was for, which you don’t want to have.
>> >> >
>> >> > What I’m not willing to do is acknowledge that you sought consensus
>> in
>> >> good
>> >> > faith. There was ongoing discussion and debate. There was no specific
>> >> > written consensus proposal. My issue is with you claiming consensus
>> you
>> >> know
>> >> > you don’t actually have.
>> >> >
>> >> > Misusing funds? Give me a break. I just want an actual good faith
>> >> consensus
>> >> > process. Even assuming a bad faith process based entirely on Tuesday
>> >> > meetings that not everyone can attend is valid, you didn’t present
>> the
>> >> same
>> >> > proposal at each meeting, and didn’t have a clear text of a
>> proposal. I
>> >> am
>> >> > not the only person confused about your proposal, which originally
>> >> > called
>> >> > for people being paid for working on the elevator, or unhappy with
>> the
>> >> way
>> >> > you’re going about seeking consensus through conflict instead of
>> >> > discussion.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I said, there was already $400 in funds available before the
>> meeting
>> >> > where you claimed consensus. There is $720 more on the way, which can
>> >> > be
>> >> > matched by $720 from the equipment fund, which means $1,840 in
>> initial
>> >> funds
>> >> > available, against your original request of $400. That’s the magic of
>> >> > consensus, discussion, and community engagement, as opposed to
>> >> > conflict,
>> >> > stubbornness, and bad faith.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think you’re stuck in an old model of open conflict at meetings and
>> >> > on
>> >> > -discuss to make decisions at Noisebridge. I think a big part of the
>> >> > communication issue is you refusing to use Slack, which has smoothed
>> >> over so
>> >> > much discussion over the past two years.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think that your decision to have open conflict instead of good
>> faith
>> >> > effort to talk to people and make a plan of action is unexcellent.
>> >> >
>> >> > You have not once attempted to reach out to me individually before
>> >> shouting
>> >> > “unexcellent” on a list with hundreds of people. You have not put
>> >> together
>> >> > any kind of spending plan. You haven’t clarified in any written
>> >> > proposal
>> >> > where funds would come from. The only text presented, which is in the
>> >> form
>> >> > of a meeting summary, is vague and confusing. You don’t want to
>> discuss
>> >> > where money should come from. I understand that. But that’s what
>> >> consensus
>> >> > means. Discussing where the money comes from and how to get it opens
>> up
>> >> new
>> >> > opportunities.
>> >> >
>> >> > And this is all a moot point because the only actual spending
>> proposal
>> >> > you’ve made is for parts that I already purchased and picked up at
>> the
>> >> > PO
>> >> > box the day they arrived to deliver to the space. You have not made
>> any
>> >> > other specific requests for funds.
>> >> >
>> >> > If your goal is keeping the elevator in good repair, lots of
>> discussion
>> >> and
>> >> > community excitement and talk about fundraising is the way to do
>> that.
>> >> > Starting a big public email battle and claiming consensus at a
>> meeting
>> >> about
>> >> > your specific ideas about money allocation (not actually written down
>> >> > in
>> >> any
>> >> > proposal) when you know there is an ongoing discussion about how to
>> do
>> >> this
>> >> > is bad faith and counterproductive.
>> >> >
>> >> > John
>> >> >
>> >> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Oct 21, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John S. are you unwilling to use $400/year from the General Fund for
>> >> >> elevator repairs?  Again, the Noisebridge Consensus Wiki states:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "If a member does not attend a meeting, they are asserting that they
>> >> >> are comfortable with the decisions of those who do choose to attend,
>> >> >> whether or not they agree. "
>> >> >>
>> >> >> from: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Refusing to acknowledge proper consensus and trying to block after 3
>> >> >> consecutive meetings which you did not attend is unexcellent
>> behavior.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you refuse to provide this money for elevator repairs then you
>> >> >> would be mishandling Noisebridge funds and abusing your privileged
>> >> >> role as Treasurer of Noisebridge.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The $200 that DBI is requiring for ADA access /does not/ need to be
>> >> >> spent on the elevator.  There are other ADA issues at Noisebridge
>> that
>> >> >> could use this money.  For starters, you can use it to reimburse
>> Kevin
>> >> >> P. for the caution tape he purchased on Amazon to better mark ADA
>> >> >> access in the space.  I would also like to use it to purchase some
>> >> >> quality ADA signage for the space and possibly do something about
>> the
>> >> >> heavy glass doors always blocking up the entry way.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here is an example of a good ADA sign with braille:
>> >> >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/ADA-Sign-Wheelchair-Accessible-
>> >> Tactile-Symbol-Braille-Plastic-6x9-Blue-White-/
>> >> 251892778533?epid=1800082539&hash=item3aa5fac625:g:fdIAAOSww5NZA8IK
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would also be nice to use this money to add braille to key places
>> >> >> in the space for those with vision impairments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Money has not been available for elevator repairs, thus the
>> consensus
>> >> >> proposal. I will make a separate reply to that later.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also please note, I have had surgery on my hands previously and
>> typing
>> >> >> on these emails on the NB-Discuss is taxing me and is painful.  John
>> >> >> S, would you be open to coming to the NB meeting this Tuesday to
>> >> >> discuss these issues in more detail?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Zach
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On 10/20/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> Hi Liz,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I think the initial thing was that the landlord had called for a
>> >> >>> repair
>> >> >>> after someone being 86’d broke the elevator. That makes sense,
>> since
>> >> the
>> >> >>> elevator is part of the building and not a part of Noisebridge.
>> It’s
>> >> >>> their
>> >> >>> legal responsibility, but it’s not clear if we have anything in our
>> >> lease
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> force them to keep it in good repair. So it’s not clear Noisebridge
>> >> >>> has
>> >> >>> paid
>> >> >>> for elevator repairs in the past or just notified the landlord,
>> >> >>> though
>> >> >>> I’m
>> >> >>> curious about that.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Then things dragged out for over a month as the landlord claimed
>> that
>> >> >>> licensed elevator repair people were booked solid. Then they came
>> and
>> >> >>> said
>> >> >>> they did a repair, but there were still issues with it. So Zach
>> and a
>> >> >>> few
>> >> >>> other community members did DIY repairs that seem to have it
>> working,
>> >> >>> though
>> >> >>> people are advised to avoid using it unless they need to.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I don’t think money is the issue right now since there is money set
>> >> >>> aside
>> >> >>> for repairs and more on the way, and the first requested parts
>> >> >>> ordered
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> delivered. I’m waiting for word of additional spending we should
>> >> >>> make,
>> >> >>> but
>> >> >>> haven’t gotten anything specific. The issue of whether or not
>> >> >>> Noisebridge
>> >> >>> should take on some of the landlord’s responsibility to repair the
>> >> >>> elevator
>> >> >>> was do-ocratically resolved.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Money is now available in the low hundreds, and soon low thousands,
>> >> >>> for
>> >> >>> parts and professional maintenance. If expected costs expand to mid
>> >> >>> thousands or high thousands, I think we should figure out exact
>> >> >>> numbers
>> >> >>> so
>> >> >>> we can approach the landlord and say we’ll take on your
>> >> >>> responsibility
>> >> >>> here
>> >> >>> but need to work out a deal with you to reduce rent. Since no one
>> has
>> >> >>> a
>> >> >>> specific ask above $40 so far, and those parts have already been
>> >> ordered
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> are in the space, I don’t think we’re practically constrained by
>> the
>> >> >>> money
>> >> >>> available.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Best,
>> >> >>> John
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On Oct 20, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Liz Henry <lizhenry at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hi,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The elevator seems to have been in bad repair for some time.  I
>> >> >>>> didn't
>> >> >>>> realize there was any particular limit on how much money we spend
>> on
>> >> >>>> elevator repair.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Are people not calling elevator repair services because of money
>> >> >>>> concerns?
>> >> >>>> The last I heard from Mitch and others about this, we have plenty
>> of
>> >> >>>> money.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Fixing the elevator shouldn't be an optional part of running
>> >> >>>> Noisebridge.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> What's the deal here?  Who calls for a repair service, or decides
>> >> >>>> not
>> >> >>>> to,
>> >> >>>> these days?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I've been going around for years talking about how NB and other
>> bay
>> >> >>>> area
>> >> >>>> hackerspaces are great about accessibility -- when we first moved
>> >> >>>> spaces,
>> >> >>>> I asked for wheelchair access and really appreciated that people
>> >> >>>> took
>> >> >>>> that
>> >> >>>> seriously.   It has meant that I can recommend the space to others
>> >> >>>> as
>> >> >>>> well
>> >> >>>> as having access myself.   Hope that can continue.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Best
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Liz
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:25 PM, John Shutt
>> >> >>>>> <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> The original consensus proposal doesn’t mention the general fund
>> at
>> >> >>>>> all,
>> >> >>>>> so in trying to understand how to actually allocate money, here’s
>> >> >>>>> my
>> >> >>>>> interpretation:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 1. $200 in state mandated spending has already been allocated to
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> Elevator Repair Fund.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 2. $720 is inbound to the Elevator Repair Fund. This will mean
>> $920
>> >> is
>> >> >>>>> allocated specifically to elevator repair.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 3. Matching grants from the Equipment Fund count towards
>> >> Noisebridge’s
>> >> >>>>> yearly spending on elevator repair.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 4. If the Elevator Repair Fund and/or Equipment Fund are
>> exhausted
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> point that they can’t cover the mandated $400 of elevator repair
>> >> >>>>> spending
>> >> >>>>> per year, consensus is that the money should be made available
>> from
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> general fund at that point.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> This level of detail matters since our spending and bookkeeping
>> is
>> >> >>>>> more
>> >> >>>>> complicated than in the past. We have several distinct funds and
>> >> >>>>> need
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>> account for them separately.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Details and running totals can be found at
>> >> >>>>> https://noisebridge.net/finances
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> If my interpretation of how to account for the elevator repair
>> fund
>> >> >>>>> seems
>> >> >>>>> off to anyone, let’s talk about it and figure it out.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> John
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 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#
>> >> Elevator_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-dis
>> cuss
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> >> >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-dis
>> cuss
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20171024/838e9bc5/attachment-0003.html>