[Policy-Wonks] hiatus policy question

[Kelly]

I found this page, which appears to support our interpretation of the
previous consensus on a 3 month period of monthly contact prior to
membership expiry:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership/Membership_Team

This page discusses hiatus, but appears to have a very broad
definition of the uses of hiatus (which is more in line with how it is
actually used).

Meeting notes from that era which discuss hiatus include:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2009_03_31
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2009_04_14

The initial notes mention members leaving town as a reason for hiatus,
but the final consensus appears to be that hiatus can be taken for any
reason.

I will post to discuss about this. It looks like we should just take a
fresh consensus about what hiatus is and what its limits are.

-Kelly

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:14, Mitch Altman <maltman23 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Kelly,
>
> The original intent was for people who, for whatever reason, didn't want to
> pay dues for awhile.  To be on hiatus, a NB member in good standing (i.e.,
> all paid up, with no unpaid  gap in communication with the treasurer for 3
> months or more) communicates this intent to the treasurer.  They are then on
> hiatus until they communicate with the treasurer that they want to end their
> hiatus and pay their month's dues, at which point they are again a member in
> good standing.
>
> Any record of our past consensus would be in meeting notes, put on the wiki
> by the secretary at the time (I think we've had three thus far:  David
> Molnar, Shannon Lee, Danny O'Brian).
>
> Question for you:
> Can you reply and let me know about how many you work a week as treasurer?
> (More info on this in an email I sent "treasurer@" earlier.)
>
> Mitch.
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>> From: hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:44:45 -0800
>> Subject: hiatus policy question
>> To: maltman23 at hotmail.com
>> CC: policy at lists.noisebridge.net
>
>>
>> Hi Mitch. You once told me that the hiatus option for members was
>> intended to be for members who were traveling, etc, as opposed to
>> members who are around and active and just can't afford to pay dues,
>> or don't feel like it for some period of time. Is there some official
>> record of this somewhere?
>>
>> We're going to make a new consensus about hiatus, and we're trying to
>> understand what the original intentions of that consensus were.
>>
>> -Kelly