Current Consensus Items: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Author removed two proposals with plans to adjust and resubmit.) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
! Summary and pull request. | ! Summary and pull request. | ||
! Author of this Record | ! Author of this Record | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 28: | Line 23: | ||
| [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/issues/3 Github issue] | | [https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/issues/3 Github issue] | ||
| [[User:flamsmark|Tom]] | | [[User:flamsmark|Tom]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 2014-02-09 | | 2014-02-09 | ||
Revision as of 18:26, 15 February 2014
This is a page for hosting consensus items currently under debate, with their formal wording.
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 and pull request. | Author of this Record
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-02-15 | Tom | Only members can join the council. | Pull Request. This also includes some clarifying re-structuring of the membership and council descriptions. | Tom |
| 2014-02-15 | Tom | Publish member list in our policies git repo. | Github issue | Tom |
| 2014-02-09 | Robin | Ban Pidgeon | Pidgeon is unwelcome at Noisebridge. They are prohibited from entering the space or participating in the community. | Robin |
| 2014-01-21 (discussed? not in meeting notes) | Tom | Ban Lee Sonko | Pull request | Tom |
| 2014-1-9 | Dana | Consensus process change | 1. Consensus items at weekly meetings can be stopped from advancing by three member 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. |
Dana |
| 2014-1-8 | Al | In mediation Ban Dan | Mediation complete. Mediators: Praveen, Madelynn.
Ban Dan from the space for a pattern of verbal abuse against Al. |
Al |
| 2013-12-10 | 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 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. | Kevin |