[Policy-Wonks] hiatus policy question

[Kelly]

We have that now. But we didn't have it then.

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Items_History

-K

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 13:17, Mitch Altman <maltman23 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's cool to have a fresh consensus.
>
> We should probably have a separate place where we have all of our
> consensed-upon items.  Then it's not a research project whenever someone
> wants to see what we've collectively agreed upon.
>
> Mitch.
>
>
> ---------------------------
>
>> From: hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:07:29 -0800
>> Subject: Re: hiatus policy question
>> To: maltman23 at hotmail.com
>> CC: policy at lists.noisebridge.net; secretary at noisebridge.net
>
>>
>> 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