Current Consensus Items: Difference between revisions

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(removing Something Labs Consensus Item)
m (updated to reflect summary title, and text of motion)
 
(123 intermediate revisions by 24 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.


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?
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.


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.
{| 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]]
|-
 
|-
| September 5th, 2023
| proposed by [[User:Mwillson|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: [[User:Mwillson|Mark]]
|-


{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
! Date First Discussed
! Proposed By
! Informal Title
! Summary
! Author of this Record
|-
|-
| 26 May 2020 (informally discussed meetings prior)
| March 12th, 2024
| [[User:Zach|Zach]]
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
| Closing Noisebridge during the COVID-19 Pandemic
| Consensus to 86 [[User:Gssp|Benjamin]].
| I am submitting the formalized closure of Noisebridge during Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the current COVID-19 pandemic.<br>With [https://covid19.ca.gov/ 98,980 cases and 3,884 deaths] in California as of this writing, it is essential that Noisebridge stay closed in order not to further spread this virus in our communities.  <br>SF's cases are still [https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/dak2-gvuj surging upward] and the Mission neighborhood is tied for the [https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/bj8f-r6sy highest area for positive cases.] <br><br>With the exceptions of:<p>
|
1.  Consensed temporary use only to make PPE / life-saving medical equipment (following the safety orders outlined by the Governer: https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-office-workspaces.pdf)<br>
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
2.  Consensed moving to the new space (272 Capp Street) for Noisebridge's survival<br>
3.  Emptying out personal belongings from the space (1 person at a time)<br><br>
I propose the physical location of Noisebridge (2169 Mission St.) be physically closed for all other functions.  I support us to remain open virtually with classes, meetings, and other events happening online.
|-
|-
| 26 May 2020 (informally discussed meetings prior)
 
| [[User:Zach|Zach]]
| Limiting people at Noisebridge during the COVID-19 Pandemic
| I am submitting for consensus for limiting the number of people at Noisebridge during the Pandemic to no more than four (4) people in the space at any given time. <p> I think we should err on the side of caution and work to be safe, using the safety orders outlined by the Governer: https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-office-workspaces.pdf as a bare minimum starting point.<br>
Note, that this order recommends "physical distancing to the maximum extent possible."


|-
|-
| 26 May 2019
| March 12th, 2024
| [[User:kinnard|kinnard]]
| proposed by [[User:LX|LX]]
| Wait to Consense on staying or moving
| Consensus to 86 Fromsa.
| Noisebridge should wait to consense on moving or not moving until after the community has had a chance to coalesce and have a meeting at Noisebridge in the interest of communal integrity and excellent process one way or the other.
|
| Author of this Record: [[User:Mcint|Loren]]
|-
 
 
!
!
!
!
!
 


The current situation is one of extreme entropy not business as usual. We are living through arguably the greatest crisis in living memory.
<!-- open consensus item with meeting discussion for over two weeks, no blocks, rolling back to draft for further illumination
This might be the most important decision in Noisebridge’s history, not one to be taken hastily.
Several community members have voiced concerns about communication failures around Noisebridge’s real estate process thought the quarantine.
The meeting format has changed.
The meeting time changed.
And we are not able to have normal Noisebridge meetings at Noisebridge.
The board member primarily responsible for relations with the current landlord recently resigned.
Noisebridge has not sufficiently explored options at 2169 Mission St. given the drastically changed circumstances on planet and in the SF Real Estate market.
The situation improves to Noisebridge’s advantage if Noisebridge waits.
The community really wants to stay in its home but sees this as an unattainable ideal.
| [[User:kinnard|kinnard]]
|-
|-
| February 16th, MMXXI
| Ⅹ
| Be excellent to each other.
| 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