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)
 
(433 intermediate revisions by 90 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{meetings}}
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.


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.
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|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.
 
{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
 
|-
| Date First Discussed [[XX Month, Year]]
| Proposed By [[User:User|User]]
| Informal Summary Title
| Body of Motion
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
|-


{| border="1"
! Date First Discussed
! Proposed By
! Wording
! Author of this Record
|-
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_10_15|2013-10-15]]
| September 5th, 2023
|Jake
| proposed by [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
|Membership to Noisebridge should no longer be dependant on a person's ability or willingness to pay money to noisebridge, or to bring food or beer to a meeting, but only on their ability to acquire sponsorship signatures and be consensed upon at a meeting, after leaving the meeting to give opportunity for any objections to be discussed before they return.
| 2 member block -- for only freeform motions -- temporary 3 month effect, renew
Members will thus enter and remain in good standing without regard to any financial contributions they do or do not make in that time.
| Renewing May 23rd Consensus Item
A Member can be suspended by consensus minus one, meaning that consensus by the group can suspend indefinitely the membership of a person over that
REVIEWING as of Feb 27th, 2024
person's objections.
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.
|[[user:jake|jake]]
 
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]]
|-
 
|-
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_10_15|2013-10-15]]
| March 12th, 2024
|Jake
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
|JC Proposes that Noisebridge install Mag locks on the inner door
| Consensus to 86 [[User:Gssp|Benjamin]].
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|  
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_11_05|2013-11-05]]
 
|Justin
 
|I officially propose that any large policy changes at Noisebridge or in Noisebridge policies require at least 10 members or 50 percent of the members (whichever is smaller) to be present at the meeting that decides it.
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|-
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_11_05|2013-11-05]]
| March 12th, 2024
|Leif
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
|Revoke the previous two members-only consensus items are return Noisebridge to being a place where people are welcome to do excellent things without asking for permission from anyone.
| Consensus to 86 Fromsa.
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]
|  
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
<!--|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_07_23|2013-07-23]]  - Deferred until process is defined.
 
|James
 
|Create a formal process for re-admitting people into the community. The exact process will be presented.
!
|[[user:hicksu|Jarrod]]-->
!
!
!
!
 
 
<!-- open consensus item with meeting discussion for over two weeks, no blocks, rolling back to draft for further illumination
|-
|-
<!-- |[[Meeting_Notes_2013_06_18|2013-06-18]] - Deferred 07/09/2013 to clarify wording
| February 16th, MMXXI
|Monad
|
|Some issues need to be fleshed out by a meeting of interested parties. They can identify the central points that require consensus during the weekly meeting.
| Be excellent to each other.
|Casey -->
| Fiscal Sponsorship for noisebridge.space project & Party == ON
| 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