Current Consensus Items: Difference between revisions

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(add 86 Fromsa motion)
 
(387 intermediate revisions by 87 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"


{| border="1"
! Date First Discussed
! Proposed By
! Wording
! Author of this Record
|-
|-
| 2014-01-15
| Date First Discussed [[XX Month, Year]]
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
| Proposed By [[User:User|User]]
| Noisebridge should pay a service to recharge all the fire extinguishers in the space and/or purchase new fire extinguishers, and buy smoke/CO detectors for the space. We will need about a dozen working fire extinguishers for the space.
| Informal Title
| Al
| Summary
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
|-
|-
| 2014-01-21
 
| [[User:Flamsmark|Tom]]
| The canonical location for Noisebridge policies and processes shall be a git repository. The canonical process to modify these policies and processes shall be the merging of a proposed changed version. The desicion to merge a patch shall be made by Noisebridge's consensus process. The most recent version of all such policies and procedures shall also be posted at an appropriate page on the Noisebridge wiki. It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary to operate and maintain this system.
| [[User:Flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
|-
| 2014-01-07
| September 5th, 2023
| [[User:Flamsmark|Tom]]
| proposed by [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
| Adopt the draft anti-harassment policy in its current form in the [https://github.com/noisebridge/anti-harassment git repo].
| Renewing May 23rd Consensus Item
| Tom
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: [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
|-
|-
| 2014-1-14
 
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
|-
| Ban Dante for vandalism in the bathroom. http://imgur.com/a/Ye6mW
| March 12th, 2024
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
| [[User:LX|LX]]
| Consensus to 86 [[User:Gssp|Benjamin]].
|
| [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
| 2014-1-9
| [[User:Dana|Dana]]
| 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]]
|-
|-
| March 12th, 2024
| [[User:LX|LX]]
| Consensus to 86 Fromsa.
|
| [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
| 2014-1-8
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
| Ban Dan from the space for a pattern of verbal abuse against Al.
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al]]
|-
| 2013-12-17
| [[User:Creativetaboo|Madelynn Martiniere]], [[User:AlSweigart|Al Sweigart]]
| 1) This proposal would abandon consensus as the decision-making process used by Noisebridge. In its place Noisebridge will make decisions using a majority vote of the membership.


2) All current associate members will be converted to full members, and the associate membership role will be abolished.
 
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al Sweigart]]
!
|-
!
|2013-12-10
!
|[[User:Bfb|Kevin]]
!
|Noisebridge should attach an expiration period of 90 days, beginning October 29, 2013, 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 an Associate Member role]]. All subsequent mutations of the original consensus should be brought for a second consensus, beginning February 4, 2014. If no consensus can be reached, Noisebridge will revert to being open to the public all day, every day.
!
|[[User:Bfb|Kevin]]
 
 
<!-- open consensus item with meeting discussion for over two weeks, no blocks, rolling back to draft for further illumination
|-
|-
| 2013-12-10
| February 16th, MMXXI
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom Lowenthal]]
|
| Renaming the category “Noisebridge Members” to the “Noisebridge Council”, and renaming the category “Associate Members” to “Noisebridge Members”. This change extends not only to our operations, but also to our bylaws, so that the effect is only a change of name but does not change the rights or privileges of any person or category of people.
| Be excellent to each other.
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom Lowenthal]]
| Fiscal Sponsorship for noisebridge.space project & Party == ON
|-
| ɲ
| 2014-01-21
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
-->
| Proposals shall only be elegible to reach consensus in a weekly meeting in the exact form that they were agreed at a previous weekly meeting. Items shall not be elegible for consensus unless they were recorded on the Current Consensus Items page on the Noisebridge wiki before 24 hours have passed after the end of the weekly meeting in which they were proposed. If a proposal is modified at a weekly meeting, it shall not be elegible for consensus at that meeting.
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
| [[Meeting_Notes_2013_12_03|2013-12-03]]
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al Sweigart]]
| In order to validly pass the consensus process, proposed consensus items must be recorded on the Current Consensus Items wiki page before 24 hours have passed after the end of the meeting in which they are introduced. The text so recorded should exactly match the text discussed during the meeting. Only this exact wording of the proposed consensus item is elegible for consensus at the next week's meeting. Any changes --- even small ones --- to the wording will be considered a different and new consensus proposal and will require another week before it can be consensed on. The spirit of this proposal is to prevent changes (small or radical) to consensus items being made and consensed on without notice to the larger community. (Amended Jan. 14, 2014)
| [[User:AlSweigart|Al Sweigart]]
|-
|[[Meeting_Notes_2013_11_19|2013-11-19]]
|[[User:Jerkey|Jake]]
|Jake proposes a change to the previous consensus agreement regarding access to Noisebridge. (originally posted 2013/11/4 to discuss)
 
Replace:
<blockquote>Noisebridge's space shall be open only to members and associate members at any time. A member or associate member may at any time invite a person into Noisebridge and host that person at Noisebridge as long as that member or associate member remains at Noisebridge. No other person shall be permitted at Noisebridge at any other time.</blockquote>


with:
|}
<blockquote>Noisebridge is open to Members, Associate Members, and guests sponsored by same, at all times. Any person who is not one of the above may be asked to leave if no Member or Associate Member present wishes to sponsor them at that time, with no other justification being necessary.</blockquote>
<blockquote>People coming to Noisebridge who don't know anyone should be introduced to members who are present so that sponsorship can occur if members present choose to do so at that time. Noisebridge should present itself as "open to public visitors and guests as often as possible".</blockquote>
|[[User:flamsmark|Tom]]

Latest revision as of 21:09, 12 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 Title Summary Author of this Record User
September 5th, 2023 proposed by Mark 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 LX Consensus to 86 Benjamin. Loren
March 12th, 2024 LX Consensus to 86 Fromsa. Loren