Editing Draft Consensus Items

This page is for consensus drafts so that people can easily share ideas with a record of changes without creating time pressure for community members.

The [Current Consensus Items] 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.

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
! Date First Discussed 
! Proposed By
! Informal Title
! Summary
! Author of this Record

|-
| Feb 27, 2024
| Mark
| (Renew) 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 12 months. 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. Finally being able to articulate reasons for blocking is required. Good faith blocking is the only acceptable kind of blocking. 


| Mcint

|-
|January 27th, 2024
|JD
|Wholistic Safety Upgrades
| Safety Upgrade Consensus Item Jan/Feb 2024

Specific actions that can be taken to make the space for all taking into account the unique conditions at 272 Capp.

**Physical Security Updates**
* RFID on front gate
Adding an RFID scanner to the front gate and repairing/replacing the front door to increase functionality of the closer. (Additionally adding signage discouraging propping the door open)

*CCT camera at entrances/exit
Adding closed circuit ‘trail cam’ cameras to record (for a limited time) the activity of the front gate and fire exit.

* Improved lighting (inside/outside)
Improving lighting around the space, but especially in the second floor hallway.

**Security Control Updates**

* Limited/Restricted access based on membership level
Establishing a default condition of ‘members only’ and only be open to the public on specific days when there can be a monitoring presence. Classes and events can have non-members attendees, but their behavior is the responsibility of the event organizer or sponsor.

* Adding reservation requirements to NB assets
Establishing some way of reserving the any identified space by member sponsors if they provide identifying details and adhere to stipulations above. Temporary pins can be established for event participants.

* Adding membership levels
Potentially adding a new level of associate associate member, or some such, to allow access to trusted individuals short of membership (like reviving the 30 access policy)

* Logging & tracking RFID usage
Establishing records of RFID use and/or identifying each tag. Preliminary ideas for systems could include anonymous RFIDs for members and specific PINs each event that could be correlated with camera records for a limited period of time.


(On a personal note: This proposal includes elements that I admit takes surveillance farther than Noisebridge has ever been comfortable with. This was done intentionally, hoping to generate debate and find the level of access control that the community can accept. It is overly broad specifically to allow it to be shaved down to size through the process of good faith negotiations with Members who would block objectionable content)



|JD

|-
| January 23, 2024
| JD
| Permission to install security cameras 
| The time has come. It is time to accept the reality that the Capp St location has different physical security challenges than previous locations. We cannot effectively secure entry and it is now very easy for people to wander in off the street. Vulnerable individuals are not safe in the space. Sexual assaults have been reported in crowded rooms at times when the space is busy. We do not know who comes and goes and we have no way of finding out. Entire classes of hackers are avoiding Noisebridge entirely. If we are seriously concerned about providing a place where people can hack and hang in safety, it is time to acknowledge the reality of the situation and do what we can to realize a space that is truly welcoming to all. (This is a hard one for me to propose. For the past few years I have been working within the existing framework of the organization, attempting to find any solutions that do not go to this level. But I think it is necessary to admit that immediate safety concerns against predatory behavior trumps hypothetical omnipresent surveillance in a world where it is impossible to walk past a Tesla without passing an entire array of cameras)
|JD this item is on hold in leu of next item above

|-
| August 8, 2023
| TJ
| Permission to lock doors with the same key as the Member front access key. People who have front door access can also open the sewing room if they so wish. 
| There was a small-c consensus to put locks on the sewing room doors. Since this has been controversial even to otherwise Excellent Noisebridgers, I wish to make this big-C Consensus so we have everyone on board. I believe big-C consensus should be used in this case to establish full transparency and support or else there is an easy case to undo the changes that have been made.
|-
| August 1, 2023
| Mark
| Updating & clarifying Membership process language. 
|Currently, there is an 8 week process to become a full Member, (Consensed on Feb 8th 2022), with 4 weeks dedicated to reviewing their application for concerns/blocks. But also, we Consensed in 2018 on a 2 week post-acceptance "oh shit" period in case a Member is late to block for whatever reason. We need to decide if this is still necessary since the new process allots so much consideration time and update the language accordingly so that it is clear that it overrides the old "oh shit" process, if it indeed does.

Proposal: Amend the Feb 2022 Membership process Consensus item to say "oh shit" period is no longer necessary, or: if we think it is still, amend it to make it clear that it is not overridden. Update the language in the wiki and on the application form so there is no ambiguity.

|-
| May 18, 2023
| Farley
| 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. 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.


| Farley
|-


|-
| February 21, 2023
| Mark
| CONSENSUS FOR DEMONSTRATED EFFORT TO FIND A GOOD LOVING HOME FOR EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT BEFORE WASTE DISPOSAL
| Don't throw away big stuff people are actually working on and have put a lot of time and effort into:

Expensive equipment should go through the 2 week big-c consensus process or have a demonstrated good-faith effort made to find a good loving home for it before it is gotten rid of through waste disposal.  An example might be a piece of equipment worth over $20,000 USD when it was new.  This is both out of respect and to save the reputation of Noisebridge for future donation of expensive equipment... Something something a reasonable publicly documented effort to reach project/tool owner must be established so as to comply with this procedure.

| Mark
|-


|-
| 22 May 2018
| Trent
| Publish Slack Logs Going Forwards; Respect Privacy of Slack Logs Before June 2018
| Publish monthly slack logs on the internet moving forwards. Slack history before June 2018 is not to be shared without further Consensus.
| Trent


|}