Editing Draft Consensus Items

This page is for consensus item drafts so that:

* people can easily share ideas with a record of changes
* avoid creating time pressure for community members by introducing items before sufficient discussion has happened

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


|-
| February 28, 2020
| Tyler Maran
| Setting Hold positions for crypto currency 
| Noisebridge will never maintain more than 20% of it's total liquid assets (cash and equivalents) in crypto currency. 

I am suggesting this in light of the $156,000 BTC donation from Kraken. Which brings our BTC to more than 50% of our current assets. 

This check will be assessed quarterly (in line with fiscal quarters) and balances greater than 20% would be liquidated.


20% will be a maximum number, and not a target number. i.e. if we increase cash balances we will not buy crypto to maintain that ratio. It is just a measurement of our maximum acceptable risk.  
| Tyler Maran


|-
| 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
|-


|-
| September 15, 2021
| Fnord
| COVID-19 vaccination requirement; honor system preferred
| For the next 90 days unless explicitly renewed by fresh Consensus:

When taking appropriate responsibility for introducing a new person into the physical space, it is expected that vaccination status may be explicitly discussed (briefly and respectfully) to communicate the clear Consensus of Noisebridge that for safety of all participants, people not currently vaccinated against COVID-19 may not be permitted to come inside without good reason for any exception.

Respecting preference for anonymity and discouraging pointless "papers please" scenarios should generally preclude checking vaccine cards and especially any associated demands for identification without good reason for any exception (such as special events or legal requirements).

| Fnord
|-

|-
| March 16, 2021
| Pyconaut
| Set Aside 150k for Instalation of an Elevator at 272 Capp 
| We have an offer to install an elevator at Noisebridge for about 100k, might be a bit more for the extra work nessasary to prep the area (landing area), and will probably be close to 120k.
  
Extra money not spent on elevator would go into an ADA upkeep fund for long term upkeep of the elevator and other ADA items in the space (doors, bathrooms, desks).  

But to be safe we should set aside an extra bit of money for (unforseen issues (redirecting Pipes or Whatnot)). 

Or we could put that extra money into an elevator and ADA upkeep fund for long term upkeep of the elevator and other ADA items in the space.  

This Item will also have a 1 month research period for seeing if there are any better offers that people can find for installing the elevator.    

| Pyconaut
|-


|-
| January 23, 2021
| Ⅹ
| Be excellent to each other.
| & party on.
| Ⅹ
|-

|-
| November 17, 2020
| fnord
| Temporary Provisional Capacity Cap at Capp Under Construction in this Time of Contagion
| Regarding 272 Capp Street and the expeditious buildout thereof:

0) Respecting (recently updated) SF requirements relating to coronavirus pandemic, Noisebridge is temporarily closed for "business as usual".  Whatever details, safe to say for the foreseeable future: no in-person "events" (classes, tours, parties, etc).  And most activities related to the buildout should probably hold off for now.  Take a break folks!

1) Going forward, limit number of people indoors at 272 Capp to 3 downstairs and 3 upstairs - whenever volunteers can safely get back to work building out the new space.

2) Scheduled volunteers building out the new space will be supported in their relentless pursuit of excellence.  Knowledgeable volunteers are encouraged to facilitate safe and productive use of the space. 

3) Prioritizing projects to safely open the the space for more participants - ventilation and making good use of the outdoor space.  Allocate funds and encourage donations for these "phase zero" buildout expenses - and budget $1000 for JD to expedite initial shopping list for Moving The Project(s) Forward.

4) Consider any and all of these extraordinary restrictions to be automatically obsolete by (at the latest) March 14th 2021 and open to reasonable modifications as things change.  Probably should refresh details and reconfirm relevance at least every month or so.

Anyway.  This proposal for (formal) Consensus claims to reflect the current state of affairs and concerns of volunteers working to build out the space,  Further suggestions, questions, support (and moar volunteers!) from the broader Noisebridge community would be most welcome at this point.
| fnord
|-

|-
| March 24, 2020
| Ⅹ
| SHUT IT DOWN!
| For the upmost safety and excellence of humanity, noisebridge is hereby CLOSED until further notice.
| Ⅹ
|-

|-
| March 24, 2020
| Ⅹ
| OPEN IT UP!
| Noisebridge is as open as possible, noisebridge is hereby OPEN.
| Ⅹ
|-

|-
| May 22, 2018
| John Shutt
| Defining Board Officer and Chairperson Roles
| Text here: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Defining-Roles
| John Shutt


|-
| 22 May 2018
| Beka
| Philanthropy Renaming
| Rename Philanthropists to Daemons and update all the relevant related words in parallel ways.
| Beka

|-
| 22 May 2018
| Beka
| Document and Do-ocratize Infrastructure
| Noisebridge will document it's infrastructure (including access control, wikipedia and social media accounts, domain names, financial record keeping and related accounts), and build tools to reduce or eliminate the reliance on trusted individuals, so as to prevent those items of infrastructure from becoming unusable or unmaintainable in the case that those trusted individuals cease to be readily contactable. All such tools will aim to maximize decentralized do-ocratic participation, transparency, and accountability, and minimize secrecy and concentration of power. As part of this, it is necessary to answer the following questions:
1) How can these pieces of infrastructure be accessed without significant vulnerabilities? I.E. what does it mean to access NB's Twitter account in an accountable way? How does that compare to bank information? To domain names? What conditions are appropriate for each such piece of infrastructure, to allow access to working groups building tools?

2) What tools can be made to provide decentralizeddo-ocratic control and accountability? What information must be shared, when, and how can that sharing be guaranteed?

3) Who will build the tools, write the documentation, etc.?

When these three questions can be answered, access will be granted to these tools. The system of trusted individuals may continue to exist as a fallback, if desirable, but will not be the sole way to manage this infrastructure thereafter.

| Beka



|}

== Related Pages ==


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.