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)
 
(328 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Rubin.jpg|1000px]]
{{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
! Informal Title
! Summary and pull request.
! Author of this Record
|-
|-
| 2014-02-25
| Date First Discussed [[XX Month, Year]]
| [[User:Neurotech1|John]]
| Proposed By [[User:User|User]]
| RAYC Temporary ban for 6 Months.
| Informal Summary Title
| RAYC is instructed to take a break from NB. Therefore he is prohibited from entering the physical building of 2169 Mission st. for 6 Months.
| Body of Motion
| [[User:Neurotech1|John]]
| Author of this Record [[User:User|User]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-25
 
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
| House rules
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/9 Pull request.] Highlights:
* We have a thing about telling people to leave.
* Noisebridge is your hackerspace, not your home.
* The basement, roof and fire escape are out of bounds.
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-25
| September 5th, 2023
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
| proposed by [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
| Ban [[User:N0_Hat|Josh]]
| 2 member block -- for only freeform motions -- temporary 3 month effect, renew
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/8 Pull request.]
| Renewing May 23rd Consensus Item
| [[User:flamsmark|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]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-18
 
| [[User:N0_Hat|N0_Hat]]
| Ban kyle, johnny, kara
| Ban kyle, johnny, kara from the space for reoccurring pattern of abusive behavior. 
| [[User:N0_Hat|N0_Hat]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-18
| March 12th, 2024
| [[User:N0_Hat|N0_Hat]]
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
| Ban Robin
| Consensus to 86 [[User:Gssp|Benjamin]].
| Ban Robin from the space for reoccurring pattern of abusive behavior. 
|  
| [[User:N0_Hat|N0_Hat]]
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-18
 
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
 
| Only members can join the council.
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/4 Pull Request]. This also includes some clarifying re-structuring of the membership and council descriptions.
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-18
| March 12th, 2024
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
| Publish member list in our policies git repo.
| Consensus to 86 Fromsa.
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/issues/3 Github issue]
|  
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
|-
| 2014-02-11
| General
| Ban RAYC
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/7 Pull request.]
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]]
|-
| 2014-01-09
| [[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]]
!
!
!
!
 
 
<!-- 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:Bfb|Kevin]]
|
| ''Tabled until details are elaborated'' Expiration period for associate member policy
| Be excellent to each other.
|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.
| Fiscal Sponsorship for noisebridge.space project & Party == ON
|[[User:Bfb|Kevin]]
| 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