Talk:Current Consensus Items

From Noisebridge
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Thoughts on pulling the consider the circumstances on sleeping proposal)
(Discussion for Consider the Circumstances of people sleeping proposal)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Discussion for Consider the Circumstances of people sleeping proposal ==
[[User:Gregorydillon|Gregorydillon]] ([[User talk:Gregorydillon|talk]]) 21:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I was getting objections to this proposal on noisebridge discuss that it is vague and because it is confusing because there is currently no auto banning policy.  Obviously both true.  1)  But the community has vague views on sleeping, and there is a value in accurate describing vagueness.  2)  There is also no current policy preventing sleeping at NB.  A balanced approach addresses the concerns of those who might get caught in this, and tries to avoid polarization    The time is not ripe for this consensus therefore I pulled it from the agenda list.
Consider the Circumstances When a person is found sleeping at Noisebridge, the community should consider if there are sufficient mitigating circumstance or gray areas --e.g power naps, special extenuating circumstances, etc. -- so that a sanction other than banning should be permitted.
This is intended as a soft consensus item.  It recognizes that the people who are sometimes sleeping at noisebridge are someone's family, friends, former lovers.  That we should consider the circumstances of what's happening, and  try to be nice about it.
There are also times when someone is working on a deadline, putting in the hours, and will close their eyes-- this should be considered differently than using the space as residency type of case.
Also, the whole sleeping thing is taking so much time, hopefully a soft amendment like this one can lower some of the heat.
-  I'm won't be at the Tuesday meetings.  But those are some of my thoughts in proposing this language.

Revision as of 21:29, 29 January 2014

Personal tools