[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
bfb at riseup.net
Wed Nov 20 16:14:08 UTC 2013
James, I agree that eliminating the requirement of member dues as a part of the associate member decision was a stretch. It was topical in the context of a member/associate member contrast. I would not have consensed on a proposal that privileges dues with full participation in consensus.
The exploit you raise was discussed at the meeting, and it was agreed that the consensus reflected what had been posted prior to the meeting closely enough to move forward. I empathize with your concern, and agree that it would have been best to discuss the amended consensus for another week.
Generally, if there's any question of a need to wait another week, I err on waiting. Folks at the meeting you reference felt a need to roll out the work in progress with the understanding that it is open for further amendment. Lol, agile consensus :'( ... please jump in and correct me if I am mistaken.
-------- Original message --------
From: James Sundquist <sundquistjames at gmail.com>
Date:11/19/2013 20:50 (GMT-06:00)
To: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
J: I've found what I believe to be a bug, or exploit, in our consensus process. I've included links below and am looking for clarification. The topic I want to specifically address is the elimination of membership dues, which is said to have happened last week. My understanding is that membership dues were eliminated by amendments made to Tom's last consensed proposal. This was explained to me a couple days ago in-person while visiting the space, but it confused me as I'd heard nothing about it before the meeting, and I'm unable to find any reference to the elimination of membership dues in current consensus items, previous consensus items, in any previous posting to nb-discuss (except one noted below) or nb-announce. I could also find no mention of this in either 11/05 or 11/12 meeting notes.
"All the decisions being made have been
month-long consensus items, documented in meeting notes as usual and
discussed extensively on the mailing list..." 
J: What really sticks out to me about this is the membership dues were removed by an amendment added onto the previous proposal, which was A) not being discussed as a radical change to the proposal, which would require re-submission or an additional two week process according to our rules of consensus and B) not possible to discuss outside of that exact meeting because it fell under the grey area of a proposal in it's second week of discussion.
I'm concerned that the elimination of membership dues was done in a way that circumvents the need for actual notice to anyone outside the physical meeting. In essence it is impossible for any member to block who is not physically present, because they cannot be aware of the amendment outside of what has been publicly posted (or not). Does this specific amendment count as a radical change?
"John and I both stood aside the first time around,when 2300-1000 access
control was consensed. When it became 24 hour law of the land I spent 2
hours airing concerns. Supporters of the proposal addressed my concerns
and we agreed on amendments (eliminate member dues and eliminate the need
for Consensus to become an associate member). I allowed myself to be
involved and committed to the process, because that's how I thought
consensus should work..." 
"The wording of the consensus proposal made in the first week can be altered during the consensus process of the second meeting, although radical changes in the sense or impact of a proposal require a resubmitted proposal, and a new two week process." - A note on the Consensus project from our wiki page
Now I want to add the link to last week's meeting notes.
And the week prior 
And our wiki page on Consensus 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss