Current Consensus Items: Difference between revisions

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(We should publish the members list. After all, it's not a secret.)
(James' consensus item was bumped to do-ocracy)
(179 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This is a page for hosting consensus items currently under debate, with their formal wording.
This is a page for hosting consensus items currently under debate, with their formal wording.
Is your consensus item still drafty, in need of much revision, and not something that you think people already can more or less agree with? Perhaps it belongs on the [[Draft Consensus Items]] page, instead?


The [[Consensus_Items_History|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.
The [[Consensus_Items_History|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.


{| border="1"
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
! Date First Discussed  
! Date First Discussed  
! Proposed By
! Proposed By
! Informal Title
! Informal Title
! Summary and pull request.
! Summary
! Author of this Record
! Author of this Record


|-
|}
| 2014-02-15
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
| Publish member list in our policies git repo.
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/issues/3 Github issue]
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
| 2014-02-10
| [[User:Gregorydillon|Greg]]
| Ask if notes are okay?
| The moderator of the weekly meeting should ask if people think that the prior weeks meeting notes are accurate and sufficient. (I invite amendments to the language - the purpose is to avoid confusion and shadow the procedure in formal meetings to approve the prior meetings minutes)
| [[User:Gregorydillon|Greg]]
|-
| 2014-02-09
| [[User:MadCap|Robin]]
| Ban Pidgeon
| Pidgeon is unwelcome at Noisebridge. They are prohibited from entering the space or participating in the community.
| [[User:MadCap|Robin]]
|-
| 2014-01-21 (discussed? not in meeting notes)
| [[User:Flamsmark|Tom]]
| Ban Lee Sonko
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/1 Pull request]
| [[User:Flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
| 2014-1-9
| [[User:Dana|Dana]]
| Consensus process change
| 1. Consensus items at weekly meetings can be stopped from advancing by three member [http://www.cohousing.org/popups/gp_blocks.htm stand-asides] or one block. Those objecting are encouraged to meet with proposal author(s) to develop mutually agreeable alternatives.
 
2. Membership meetings shall be scheduled and announced in advance. If a proposal cannot reach consensus or resolution at weekly meetings it may be added to a membership meeting agenda with sponsorship of three members. To take effect a proposal would require approval of 75% of members present physically or by proxy.
 
3. All current associate members shall be converted to full members, and the associate membership role abolished.
| [[User:Dana|Dana]]
|-
|-
| 2014-1-8
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
| ''In mediation'' Ban Dan
| Mediation complete. Mediators: Praveen, Madelynn.
 
Ban Dan from the space for a pattern of verbal abuse against Al.
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
|-
|2013-12-10
|[[User:Bfb|Kevin]]
| ''Tabled until details are elaborated'' Expiration period for associate member policy
|Noisebridge should attach an expiration period of 90 days to the consensus decision [[Meeting_Notes_2013_10_29#Proposal_to_create_an_Associate_Member_role_and_limit_access_to_Noisebridge_24.2F7_to_Member.2C_Associate_Member_and_thoes_hosted_by_M_and_AM|to create new Member role]]. All subsequent mutations of the original consensus should be brought for a second consensus. If no consensus can be reached, Noisebridge will revert to being open to the public.
|[[User:Bfb|Kevin]]

Revision as of 21:46, 13 November 2018

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

Is your consensus item still drafty, in need of much revision, and not something that you think people already can more or less agree with? Perhaps it belongs on the Draft Consensus Items page, instead?

The 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 Proposed By Informal Title Summary Author of this Record