Current Consensus Items: Difference between revisions

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (updated to reflect summary title, and text of motion)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
| Date First Discussed [[XX Month, Year]]
| Date First Discussed [[XX Month, Year]]
| Proposed By [[User:User|User]]
| Proposed By [[User:User|User]]
| Informal Title
| Informal Summary Title
| Summary
| Body of Motion
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
|-
|-


|-
|-
| First discussed: NOT YET
| September 5th, 2023
| Dana
| proposed by [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
| CONSENSUS TO RESTRUCTURE OUR MEETINGS
| 2 member block -- for only freeform motions -- temporary 3 month effect, renew
|
| Renewing May 23rd Consensus Item
REVIEWING as of Feb 27th, 2024
Updating blocking requirement for big C consensus items from 1 to 2 people. Currently in order to block a big C consensus Item, we need only 1 member to block. Would like to update this number to 2 members. Perhaps the 1 member to block made sense when the community was tiny. It doesn't make sense anymore in our much larger community. If you cant convince anyone else to block with you, then maybe you just have bad ideas. The community should not have to make changes only folks with bad ideas think are good.


Noisebridge meetings regularly carry on for hours, to a point where community members are unable to stay until their items of concern come up for discussion. Our meetings can feel draining, dysfunctional, and frustrating. We must improve our meeting structure and moderation culture so Noisebridge can have healthier meetings, and so we can grow our community.  
This change would be provisional for 3 months [from May 23, 2023]. Also would only apply for member proposed consensus items, non-member proposed consensus items would still be block able by a single member. Also only 1 member would be required to block new membership. Also if any one member would like to block, but cannot because they are alone, they can request a 1 week hold to defer decision for an additional 3rd week.  
|Author of this record: [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
|-


Summary: Set 1 hour meeting goal. 1 meeting per month geared towards new folks. Other monthly meetings we get right to business. Active moderation, limits on discussion time and scope. Encouragement to make agenda items available before a meeting.  
|-
| March 12th, 2024
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
| Consensus to 86 [[User:Gssp|Benjamin]].
|
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-


Full proposal is here: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge_Meeting_Restructure_Proposal


| Dana
|-
|-
| March 12th, 2024
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
| Consensus to 86 Fromsa.
|
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
| First discussed: February 21,2023
| [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
| CONSENSUS OR DEMONSTRATED EFFORT TO FIND A GOOD LOVING HOME FOR EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT BEFORE WASTE DISPOSAL
|


Expensive equipment should go through the 2 week big-c consensus process or have a demonstrated good-faith effort made to find a good loving home for it before it is gotten rid of through waste disposal.  An example might be a piece of equipment worth over $20,000 USD when it was new.  This is both out of respect and to save the reputation of Noisebridge for future donation of expensive equipment... Something something a reasonable publicly documented effort to reach project/tool owner must be established so as to comply with this procedure.


NOTE: This has been tabled from Feb 28 meeting in favor of private apology / accountability.
!
!
!
!
!


| [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
|-


<!-- open consensus item with meeting discussion for over two weeks, no blocks, rolling back to draft for further illumination
<!-- open consensus item with meeting discussion for over two weeks, no blocks, rolling back to draft for further illumination
Line 50: Line 60:
| Fiscal Sponsorship for noisebridge.space project & Party == ON
| Fiscal Sponsorship for noisebridge.space project & Party == ON
| ɲ
| ɲ
|
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
-->
-->


|}
|}

Latest revision as of 20:01, 19 March 2024

Noisebridge | About | Visit | 272 | Manual | Contact | Guilds | Resources | Events | Projects | 5MoF | Meetings | Donate | (Edit)
Meetings | Process Meeting Template | Discussion Meeting Template | Archive | Metaguild Archive | Current Consensus Items | Consensus History | Announcements | Facilitation | Note-taking | (Edit)

This is a page for hosting consensus items currently under debate, with their formal wording.

You might be looking for

  • the Draft Consensus Items page, instead? If your consensus item still drafty, in need of much revision, and not something that you think people already can more or less agree with.
  • Consensus Items History is the public record of consensus items that have been decided on in the past. Please move the records from the "Current" page to the "History" page once they've been approved/blocked.
Date First Discussed XX Month, Year Proposed By User Informal Summary Title Body of Motion Author of this Record User
September 5th, 2023 proposed by Mark 2 member block -- for only freeform motions -- temporary 3 month effect, renew Renewing May 23rd Consensus Item

REVIEWING as of Feb 27th, 2024 Updating blocking requirement for big C consensus items from 1 to 2 people. Currently in order to block a big C consensus Item, we need only 1 member to block. Would like to update this number to 2 members. Perhaps the 1 member to block made sense when the community was tiny. It doesn't make sense anymore in our much larger community. If you cant convince anyone else to block with you, then maybe you just have bad ideas. The community should not have to make changes only folks with bad ideas think are good.

This change would be provisional for 3 months [from May 23, 2023]. Also would only apply for member proposed consensus items, non-member proposed consensus items would still be block able by a single member. Also only 1 member would be required to block new membership. Also if any one member would like to block, but cannot because they are alone, they can request a 1 week hold to defer decision for an additional 3rd week.

Author of this record: Mark
March 12th, 2024 proposed by LX Consensus to 86 Benjamin. Author of this Record: Loren
March 12th, 2024 proposed by LX Consensus to 86 Fromsa. Author of this Record: Loren


Retrieved from "https://www.noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Current_Consensus_Items&oldid=82853"