Policy/Past Meetings

From Noisebridge
< Policy(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(updating notes from Feb 16th)
(We had a meeting! Checkout the wonks talk page in the coming weeks for bylaws proposals.)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This page contains the agendas of past meetings of the [[Policy Wonks]]. Please do not edit this page unless you are adding the minutes of a meeting.
 
This page contains the agendas of past meetings of the [[Policy Wonks]]. Please do not edit this page unless you are adding the minutes of a meeting.
 +
 +
==26 Feb 2012==
 +
Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room, 19:37
 +
 +
Attendees:
 +
[[user:hurtstotouchfire|Kelly]]; [[user:snail|Snail]]; [[user:flamsmark|Tom]]
 +
 +
Administriva:
 +
* Agree who is going to edit the wiki pages.
 +
* Copy this agenda to the [https://pad.riseup.net/p/0OyA0MRFYKtS etherpad] for group contribution.
 +
* Agree on our next meeting time/place, post to the [Noisebridge#Upcoming_Events front page] and NB calendar, and invite policy@lists.
 +
* Note the attendees of this meeting.
 +
* Note any items of agreement.
 +
* Add any proposed consensus items to next week's meeting notes.
 +
Agenda:
 +
* Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
 +
* Tom reports on minimization of the bylaws
 +
** Tom: proposal for ongoing Bylaws WG and system to maintain & update the bylaws
 +
* Discuss modifications to the by-laws
 +
Notes:
 +
* Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
 +
** [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/forming-nonprofit-corporation-california Non-profit Guidelines]
 +
*** "You must have at least one director for your nonprofit public benefit corporation."
 +
*** "You must state the number of directors in either the articles of incorporation or the bylaws of your nonprofit public benefit corporation."
 +
*** "There are no set criteria for the content of bylaws, but they typically set forth internal rules and procedures."
 +
*** "the existence and responsibilities of nonprofit corporate officers and directors"
 +
*** "the size of the board of directors and the manner and term of their election"
 +
*** "how and when board meetings will be held, and who may call meetings"
 +
*** "how the board of directors will function"
 +
**[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5153 CA code regarding bylaws]
 +
**[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=06001-07000&file=6320-6325 CA code on mandatory record keeping]
 +
**[http://consensus.net/bylaws.html Recommended consensus bylaws]
 +
**[https://bitbucket.org/coop.berkeley.bsc.ridge/bylaws/wiki/Home Berkeley co-op bylaws]
 +
* Approach to writing the bylaws: we outline several high-level options, and solicit input, then work on the option that has best buy-in from Noisebridge
 +
# Hands-off bylaws
 +
#* Detailed bylaws which provide lots of guidance/suggestions, but which have few enforceable provisions, and don't tightly control our day-to-day operations
 +
#* Pro: No one really has to read them and assholes can self-identify by quoting them.
 +
#* Con: False to our values (or SO TRUE!), we don't really *need* another asshole detection system.
 +
# Harm minimization bylaws
 +
#* Middle ground bylaws, like what we have now. Should be improved so we don't substantively violate them in the course of our normal business.
 +
#* Pro: Closer to our ideals, may still affect our actions rather than merely codifying them.
 +
#* Con: Still kinda bullshit.
 +
# Utopian bylaws
 +
#* Minimally describes how we actually run things, but actually binds us to that.
 +
#* Pro: Describes our ideals perfectly.
 +
#* Con: Has to describe our ideals perfectly.
 +
* There are certain things that we need to describe, whichever option we choose. These include:
 +
**Board: elections/terms; powers/duties; board/member overlap
 +
**Membership: powers; becoming; stopping being
 +
**Decision-making: consensus; meetings
 +
**Collective Action: spending money and making contracts
 +
 
==16 Feb 2012==
 
==16 Feb 2012==
 
16 Feb 2012, 1730h
 
16 Feb 2012, 1730h
 
Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room
 
Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room
  
Attendees: Lots of people
+
Attendees: [[User:flamsmark|Tom]], [[User:Snail|Snail]], Mitch, Kelly, [[User:SuperQ|SuperQ]], [[User:Leif|Leif]], Martin, Ron, David Schneider-Joseph, David Estes, Lots of people
  
 
This meeting was derailed into a social engineering hybrid meeting with Mitch ([https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2012-February/028457.html see noisebridge discuss]). The [[Keycode Access]] system was also discussed extensively. None of the agenda items were covered.
 
This meeting was derailed into a social engineering hybrid meeting with Mitch ([https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2012-February/028457.html see noisebridge discuss]). The [[Keycode Access]] system was also discussed extensively. None of the agenda items were covered.
Line 35: Line 87:
 
*Tom
 
*Tom
 
**Rewrite bylaws into a skeleton format identifying issues that need to be fixed
 
**Rewrite bylaws into a skeleton format identifying issues that need to be fixed
 
  
 
== 11 Feb 2012 ==
 
== 11 Feb 2012 ==

Latest revision as of 21:44, 26 February 2012

This page contains the agendas of past meetings of the Policy Wonks. Please do not edit this page unless you are adding the minutes of a meeting.

Contents

[edit] 26 Feb 2012

Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room, 19:37

Attendees: Kelly; Snail; Tom

Administriva:

  • Agree who is going to edit the wiki pages.
  • Copy this agenda to the etherpad for group contribution.
  • Agree on our next meeting time/place, post to the [Noisebridge#Upcoming_Events front page] and NB calendar, and invite policy@lists.
  • Note the attendees of this meeting.
  • Note any items of agreement.
  • Add any proposed consensus items to next week's meeting notes.

Agenda:

  • Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
  • Tom reports on minimization of the bylaws
    • Tom: proposal for ongoing Bylaws WG and system to maintain & update the bylaws
  • Discuss modifications to the by-laws

Notes:

  • Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
    • Non-profit Guidelines
      • "You must have at least one director for your nonprofit public benefit corporation."
      • "You must state the number of directors in either the articles of incorporation or the bylaws of your nonprofit public benefit corporation."
      • "There are no set criteria for the content of bylaws, but they typically set forth internal rules and procedures."
      • "the existence and responsibilities of nonprofit corporate officers and directors"
      • "the size of the board of directors and the manner and term of their election"
      • "how and when board meetings will be held, and who may call meetings"
      • "how the board of directors will function"
    • CA code regarding bylaws
    • CA code on mandatory record keeping
    • Recommended consensus bylaws
    • Berkeley co-op bylaws
  • Approach to writing the bylaws: we outline several high-level options, and solicit input, then work on the option that has best buy-in from Noisebridge
  1. Hands-off bylaws
    • Detailed bylaws which provide lots of guidance/suggestions, but which have few enforceable provisions, and don't tightly control our day-to-day operations
    • Pro: No one really has to read them and assholes can self-identify by quoting them.
    • Con: False to our values (or SO TRUE!), we don't really *need* another asshole detection system.
  2. Harm minimization bylaws
    • Middle ground bylaws, like what we have now. Should be improved so we don't substantively violate them in the course of our normal business.
    • Pro: Closer to our ideals, may still affect our actions rather than merely codifying them.
    • Con: Still kinda bullshit.
  3. Utopian bylaws
    • Minimally describes how we actually run things, but actually binds us to that.
    • Pro: Describes our ideals perfectly.
    • Con: Has to describe our ideals perfectly.
  • There are certain things that we need to describe, whichever option we choose. These include:
    • Board: elections/terms; powers/duties; board/member overlap
    • Membership: powers; becoming; stopping being
    • Decision-making: consensus; meetings
    • Collective Action: spending money and making contracts

[edit] 16 Feb 2012

16 Feb 2012, 1730h Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room

Attendees: Tom, Snail, Mitch, Kelly, SuperQ, Leif, Martin, Ron, David Schneider-Joseph, David Estes, Lots of people

This meeting was derailed into a social engineering hybrid meeting with Mitch (see noisebridge discuss). The Keycode Access system was also discussed extensively. None of the agenda items were covered.

Administriva:

  • Agree who is going to edit the wiki pages.
  • Copy this agenda to the etherpad for group contribution.
  • Agree on our next meeting time/place, post to the [Noisebridge#Upcoming_Events front page] and NB calendar, and invite policy@lists.
  • Note the attendees of this meeting.
  • Note any items of agreement.
  • Add any proposed consensus items to next week's meeting notes.

Agenda:

  • Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
  • Tom reports on minimization of the bylaws
    • Tom: proposal for ongoing Bylaws WG and system to maintain & update the bylaws
  • Discuss modifications to the by-laws
  • Discussion item: rulers versus rules. Is it un-Noisebridge to use community-agreed provisions to protect ourselves from bad behavior?
  • Potential consensus item: empower NB's denizens to do-ocratically kick people out, pending mediation.
  • Potential consensus proposal: it is not excellent to admit someone to Noisebridge unless you are willing to take responsibility for their actions here
    • Could be NB's consensus, could not: either way, may stoke thought about this during the meeting rather than in the nb-discuss echo-chamber
  • Potential consensus proposal: Noisebridge is a place for hacking

To-do:

[edit] 11 Feb 2012

Location: Noisebridge, Time: 17:30

Agenda:

[edit] 05 Feb 2012

Location: Noisebridge, 1445h Agenda:

  • review Utopian by-laws
  • discuss hiatus in light of NB's thoughts
  • discuss adopting against policy (a tiny manifesto) as policywonk's manifesto
  • make sure that NB knows about the wonks, especially where and when we meet
  • wiki templates for board elections & nominations
  • adjusting the meeting script
  • agree on our next meeting time/place, post to the front-page, and invite policy@lists

To-do:

[edit] 02 Feb 2012

Location: Noisebridge 19:30 Dinner was had in advance. Tom & Kelly were present. Snail was unable to attend. Agenda:

  • discuss this week's meeting, & response to proposed revision
    • update the membership page to reflect NB's consensus
    • re-discuss hiatus in light of NB's thoughts
  • review Utopian by-laws
  • discuss adopting against policy (a tiny manifesto) as policywonk's manifesto
  • make sure that NB knows about the wonks, especially where and when we meet
  • wiki templates for board elections & nominations
  • adjusting the meeting script
  • agree on our next meeting time/place

To-do:

  • Kelly
    • email noisebridge-discuss about hiatus
    • locate the utopian NB bylaws, email to the wonks

[edit] 18 Jan 2012

Location: Noisebridge Kelly attended remotely. Tom was late because he is a slacker. Snail is the perfect child. Agenda:

  • discuss last night's meeting's response to proposed membership revisions
  • discuss any other items that were referred to us at last night's meeting
  • plan revising the by-laws
  • agree on our next meeting time/place

To-do:

  • Kelly:
    • locate the utopian NB bylaws, email to the wonks
    • get original hiatus consensus from Mitch etc
  • Tom to follow up on mailing list creation

[edit] 16 Jan 2012

Location: Phone Agenda:

  • membership expiry
  • comittee meta-conversation
  • planning by-laws revision

The inaugural meeting of the Policy Wonks resulted in a revised version of Membership, which will require several consensus items. To Do items:

Personal tools