Meeting Notes 2023 05 09
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
fill this in!
== Discussion Item 2: Farley's Proposed Consensus Changes == @mark It is proposed that requiring 2 members, or a percentage of members, for a block to happen. Steve: There were previously proposed drastic changes to concesus process. Mark: Those changes passed. Many more people have become associate members. Not that many have followed through and applied for full big M membership. Steve: I don't think it should chance and it is hard to become a membership for a reason. It's hard to become a member, and that's good. Group think can happen and we should allow for Elan: You brought up a good point that Membership currently has a lot of power. I thin require multiple people, even if its just two, then that is no longer quite as much power, then there is less risk of greatly growing big M Membership numbers. Less power per Member == less reason for anyone in particular to block someone else becoming a member. No wild contrarians basically? Loren: Is not sure what thing this change accomplishes/what is the intent. Noisebridge is a carefully balanced state. I think meeting consensus blocking policy is a formal _reflection_ of how the space works in fact or in practice. if not everyone at the meeting is willing to enforce it, we get to have exactly the same discussions, but we also fight for a Mandate of Meeting. Current "encouraging excellence" changes to "enforcing [other's] new policy", which doesn't seem like an improvement to me. Ken: This brought to mind power to veto about power in the UN. Foreign minister of a facist country can attend. When veto is given to a single person this can cause issue. Loren: blocks by multiple associate members? (response: no, they're way too loosely admitted). Ken: Spoke to a noisebridge who said they were an associate member. Why can't membership be put on pause. Longtime non-contributing members. Loren: "It's not worth creating rules just to have hackers figure out how to skirt around them." Steve: Naiively I'm thinking that Farley has seen a problem where a single member has caused a ruckus. What is this a response to? Mark: Yes there has been some head-butting on various issues. - Graffiti. Justin being a contrarian. JD: Nothing about us without us. In a flat hierarchy no decision would affect the others without them consenting to it. Loren: One variant is that blocking is a signal that you would be willing to walk away from the group over. Policy isn't meaningful if it isn't enforced. If you aren't consensed on it, then it is just us doing wordplay as a group. Mark: It is generally impressed upon new Members that blocking shouldn't be seen as a veto as much as an attempt to continue discussion (not "No" but "Not yet") Loren: This should be put on membership page. Ken: Creativity over Procedure. Loren: It would be nice to have a broader discussion on these with votes and vibe check ideas. see wiki page: "Tending the Commons": https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Mcint/TendingTheCommons
Please note that all contributions to Noisebridge are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
(opens in new window)
Retrieved from "
Not logged in
What links here