Meeting Notes 2013 12 17

From Noisebridge
Revision as of 14:56, 19 December 2013 by Jarrod (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

You should read the meeting instructions forthwith!
Don't forget to post the meeting notes to the wiki and e-mail the discussion list with a short summary.

These are the notes from the The 293rd Meeting of Noisebridge. Note-taker: Jarrod; Moderator: Tom.

  • Robin Noel has become a member. Clap!
  • Nick and Josh banning has not been consensed, Kevin will speak with them.
  • No one objects to the suggestion that those at the next meeting should defer from consensing on items next week.
  • The item that the Tuesday Meeting be moved to 7pm, to limit fatigue and encourage new attendees, has been discussed.


Contents

Short announcements and events

  • Mark: Algorithms 1 - A group is getting together on January 31st to beef up on algorithms using Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/
  • Danny: 5mof is taking a Holiday break

Membership Binder

  • Membership Applicants:

Sam Tepper - 4+

Robin Noel - 4

Madelynn Martiniere - 2

Douglas Barton - 3

Chris Whipple - 4

Taylor Austin - 4

Canard Hackenhull - 4

Raul Calderon - 4

Alex Perez - 4

Alex Peake - 4

John Shutt - 3

  • Robin's Membership:

What projects are you working on? I'm learning about LED tech. I am interesting in incorporating this into clothing. Merging the technology and artistic aspects of design. NB has created an environment where I can do that. I work in the artistic format of jewelry and i am interested in furthering that experience. Do you believe that you will be a good member: I believe it is important to be a good member of any community that I am a part of, including NB. What can you do as a Member as opposed to being and Associate Member? I want to nurture others in the community and as a Member Could you clarify what becoming a member adds to what you can already do? I would feel more responsibility and consider this community an even bigger part of my life and become more involved. Followup - this means you will be more involved in the consensus process, what are your thoughts on this process? I realized there is a diversity of opinions among many people. I have no agenda. I want to support people and support/work toward agreement. I want to feel that I am contributing to that process. Robin leaves, discussion ensues.... Consensed. Robin is a member! Clap!

  • New Associate Members:

User:Pemulis

User:HelloHowardYou‎

User:Creativetaboo‎

User:Cedric‎

User:Ravyn‎

Financial Report

  • Total $32,410.84 includes NoiseTor $5,000 - $7,000
  • Typically monthly expenses are ~$6,000.00

This does not include: +1000.00 from a recent fundraiser and +recent Bitcoin sales. ~2,700.00

Consensus items

Robin: Interested in discussing a means to secure storage in the space.

Tom suggests a straw poll to determine which proposals we can discuss tonight. Not all items may end up being discussed. Here are the proposals up for tonight, either from last week or this week to be consensed tonight or discussed and possibly moved forward to the next meeting.

A. Jake: Jake proposes a change to the previous consensus agreement regarding access to Noisebridge. Replace: Noisebridge's space shall be open only to members and associate members at any time. A member or associate member may at any time invite a person into Noisebridge and host that person at Noisebridge as long as that member or associate member remains at Noisebridge. No other person shall be permitted at Noisebridge at any other time. with: Noisebridge is open to Members, Associate Members, and guests sponsored by same, at all times. Any person who is not one of the above may be asked to leave if no Member or Associate Member present wishes to sponsor them at that time, with no other justification being necessary. People coming to Noisebridge who don't know anyone should be introduced to members who are present so that sponsorship can occur if members present choose to do so at that time. Noisebridge should present itself as "open to public visitors and guests as often as possible".

B. Al: Noisebridge should maintain lockers that people can pay a monthly fee to put a lock on for storing equipment and long-term projects. Noisebridge will spend up to $1000 on purchasing lockers, which will be handled by one of the three officers. The full details will be on the Locker_Protocol wiki page.

C. Al: In order to validly pass the consensus process, proposed consensus items will be written down on the Current Consensus Items wiki page the day of the meeting they are introduced. Only this exact wording of the proposed consensus item can be consensed on at the next week's meeting. Any change, even small ones, to the wording will be considered a different and new consensus proposal and will require another week before it can be consensed on. The spirit of this proposal is to prevent changes (small or radical) to consensus items being made and consensed on without notice to the larger community.

D. Al: Banning Nick from Noisebridge for sleeping overnight at the space multiple times. (Clarification: Not "Mischief" Nick, but the Nick with a beard and without glasses.) https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/040887.html

E. Tom: Renaming the category “Noisebridge Members” to the “Noisebridge Council”, and renaming the category “Associate Members” to “Noisebridge Members”. This change extends not only to our operations, but also to our bylaws, so that the effect is only a change of name but does not change the rights or privileges of any person or category of people.

F. Tom: It is the responsibility of all users of Noisebridge (guests, Members, and Associate Members) to contribute to Noisebridge as they are able. An individual's contribution should be proportionate with that person's use of Noisebridge and its resources. A reasonable monetary contribution from a member or associate member may be $80 per month, but it is each person's responsibility to determine what contribution is reasonable for them.

G. Banning Jon Jacques from Noisebridge for sleeping overnight at the space multiple times. https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/040994.html

H. Kevin: Noisebridge should attach an expiration period of 90 days, beginning October 29, 2013, to the consensus decision to create an Associate Member role. All subsequent mutations of the original consensus should be brought for a second consensus, beginning February 4, 2014. If no consensus can be reached, Noisebridge will revert to being open to the public all day, every day.

I. Al: Noisebridge should spend up to $150 for a nice dolly cart that can move around heavy loads.

J. Madelynn/Al: 1) This proposal will come into effect after the 2014 board election is decided. 2) The board elections will be held on the last Tuesday in January. Nominations by members will begin 30 days before the election (for 2014, this is January 1st). Nominations will close 21 days before the election (for 2014, this is January 10th). 3) This proposal would abandon consensus as the decision-making process used by Noisebridge. In its place Noisebridge will adhere to Noisebridge's existing bylaws: acts of the board directors will be decided by majority vote of the board, decisions submitted to the membership will be decided by majority vote of the membership, including decisions for accepting or rejection membership applications. The full bylaws are available at: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws 4) All current associate members will be converted to full members, and the associate membership role will be abolished. 5) Board directors must be members in good standing.

K. Danny: That the Tuesday Meeting be moved to 7pm, to limit fatigue and encourage new attendees.

L. Danny: That the Tuesday Meeting be streamed in audio when possible, with the aim of encouraging online involvement. By the consensus of those present, the meeting may be limited to those in the space for privacy reasons. The responsibility for streaming will be that of the secretary.


Tom. Okay Straw Poll. (recorded numbers are note-taker's and may not be consistent with moderator's)

A - 2

C - 1

D - 4

E - 1

F - 9

G - 7

H - 1

J - 3

K - 8

L - 8

Proposals from last week

Al: Banning Nick from Noisebridge for sleeping overnight at the space multiple times. (Clarification: Not "Mischief" Nick, but the Nick with a beard and without glasses.) https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/040887.html

Al: I have been waking up sleepers. Nick and Jean Jeaque have been found numerous times. I think banning is a necessary step to resloveing the sleeper at NB issue. Tom constrains the proposal to this particular banning proposal. I can't imagine that a person is being disruptive by sleeping. It seems cruel. Kevin: I thought we had an alternate solution, Nick claimed that Nick was not asleep. Others stated that he was awake. This sounds uncalled for. Al: There is no rule against shooting up meth. Josh: He has contributed to NB. Sleeping happens. I don't think that Nick uses NB as a place to sleep. Dan: I am not sure that Nick was asleep when he comes here. Robin: I don't see any project. Nick is not working on anything. He sits in front of the computer doing nothing. Monad: Those two are frequently here sleeping. J.C. Kevin, are you proposing an alternative. Kevin: we have proposed mediation in the past and this should be the action. Al: This keeps happening. People should be making plans to get home before they have to fall asleep. Sleepers monopolize the space they are in because we don't naturally want to be jerks and work around the person, waking them up. Tom: the critical point in this discussion is finding consensus. Kevin has objected you should work with him to find a consensus. Al: Can you actually talk to Nick and Jean Jeaque and make sure through mediation that they will not sleep here. Kevin: I will talk to them. I cannot guarantee that they will not sleep. Al: If they continue sleeping, would you support banning. Kevin: I am against anyone living here but my support of banning depends on the situation. Tom: does this work for you Al? Al: this is fine. Tom: any objections. Dan: Do not conflate Nick and Jean Jaques. Robin: Concerned about Dans tone. Nick has admitted sleeping. They are looking for an approval for sleeping. People should be working on something here. They admitted that they are sleeping here. If they come to the community saying "I am working on this project, and this is why I am sleeping here" then we can determine if they can sleep here. Tom: any objections? Greg: This solution is unspecific, and seems to be a means to putting off the issue to the future. Robin: There needs to be a neutral party involved. Kevin: We have agreed to a "talking to" not a mediation. Josh: Tom: Consensus has not been reached and is unlikely

Al: Banning Jon Jacques from Noisebridge for sleeping overnight at the space multiple times. https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2013-December/040994.html

Tabled, see above.

Proposals for next week

Danny: That the Tuesday Meeting be moved to 7pm, to limit fatigue and encourage new attendees.

Mark: I object due to ruby on rails class. The new time conflicts and they cannot do both. Tom: does anyone have a different time? 1800? Tom takes another quick poll. Most feel that 1900 is preferred. This moves on as is. L - Stream Tuesday Meeting audio and video. Any substantial objections? Madelyn: AV Needs, how will we set this up before it happens. Robin: We have a policy of taking pictures only with permission. I would like to hear more about how this will be dealt with. Greg: How will interaction with streaming users be handled. Mischeif: We have had the equipment to solve this in the past, at least the audio. Josh: could peolpe just state their handle before they speak? Madelyn: we can figure this out, but the accountability must be dealt with. Jarrod: Why is audio important? Danny: It isn't really needed I will update the language

Madelynn/Al: 1) This proposal will come into effect after the 2014 board election is decided. 2) The board elections will be held on the last Tuesday in January. Nominations by members will begin 30 days before the election (for 2014, this is January 1st). Nominations will close 21 days before the election (for 2014, this is January 10th). 3) This proposal would abandon consensus as the decision-making process used by Noisebridge. In its place Noisebridge will adhere to Noisebridge's existing bylaws: acts of the board directors will be decided by majority vote of the board, decisions submitted to the membership will be decided by majority vote of the membership, including decisions for accepting or rejection membership applications. The full bylaws are available at: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws 4) All current associate members will be converted to full members, and the associate membership role will be abolished. 5) Board directors must be members in good standing.

Operate by having the board make decisions. Outlined in consensus items. 1) This proposal will come into effect after the 2014 board election is decided. 2) The board elections will be held on the last Tuesday in January. Nominations by members will begin 30 days before the election (for 2014, this is January 1st). Nominations will close 21 days before the election (for 2014, this is January 10th). 3) This proposal would abandon consensus as the decision-making process used by Noisebridge. In its place Noisebridge will adhere to Noisebridge's existing bylaws: acts of the board directors will be decided by majority vote of the board, decisions submitted to the membership will be decided by majority vote of the membership, including decisions for accepting or rejection membership applications. The full bylaws are available at: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws 4) All current associate members will be converted to full members, and the associate membership role will be abolished. 5) Board directors must be members in good standing. Al: The consensus process creates too high a barrier for membership. Consensus has been thoroughly tested at NB and has produced some poor results. Consensus should be switched to majority vote. Greg: I don't understand part of the proposal. Robin: in principle Tom: Hands for general objections - 2. Hands for modifications and improvements - 4? Danny: I know it is difficult to get things through consensus. When I guide people to propose a consensus item I encourage them to consider criticisms in advance. My main issue is that it will get blocked instantly. It is 3-4 proposals that in the past members have had strong and moving objections to. It is unlikely for this to be done in a way that is effective. Kevin: A couple weeks back a proposal was presented about consensus -2 required to block membership. I was adamant against this. NB is collaboratively run and consensus is collaborative. It is a trajectory that is not in line with what NB's mission. Madelyn: This is a model that is used for ~%90 of non-profits out there. It is proven. 2. this takes the hard work and discussion out of the regular meetings and leaves people to their hacking. Tom: To those with strong feelings against should we continue discussion. Danny: A strange question... I thing we should discuss. Kevin: I feel like we are already going though a culture change and this is too much too soon. Al: the bylaws state that we work with majority rules. Brief discussion about bylaws and California. Al: My proposal is that we stop using consensus, and us only process in the bylaws. Danny: How will you respond to those that would block? Examples given. Tom: It is apparent that there are principled objections to this proposal. I suggest that this not move on to next week, but that Al should seek out those that will be know to object and work with them outside the meeting. Al: it is good to have the power to unilaterally block consensus. It is in the interest of the members to prevent the membership of those that can challenge them. Tom re suggests that Al seek out those that we know will block and work to move them. This item is not moving forward to next week. Danny and Al will work to contact those that would block and bring the proposal back in the new year.


Bonus: Does anyone object to noting in the notes that those present today suggest that those at the next meeting should defer from consensing on items next week.

No Objections noted. Please consider this next meeting attendees.

END OF MEETING

Discussion Notes

Meeting adjourned

Attendance

  • Note-taker started after introductions.

Now that the meeting is over, don't forget to post the meeting notes to the wiki and e-mail the discussion list with a short summary.

Personal tools