[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
asweigart at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 21:25:46 UTC 2013
There is no rule or precedence against making adjustments to consensus
items. You are arguing that members can declare that they are blocking a
consensus item even after it has passed consensus.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:
> tldr; There are no riders allowed on consensus items.
> You're mistaken. It's not allowed to tack things on to a consensus
> proposal or "stretch" them at all. Wouldn't that make you feel like you're
> circumventing the process that we use to make reasonable decisions?
> You can reach consensus on something as it was posted to the list or try
> again next week. You shot yourself in the foot trying to rush it through,
> you'll need to follow procedure before it counts for anything.
> You could make the argument that those parts which weren't altered on the
> day of the meeting are still valid. But it is an absolute certainty that
> membership fee requirements have not been altered by the vote.
> Not to comment on the quality of the proposal. It might get support in the
> Best of luck,
> On 11/20/13, 8:14 AM, bfb wrote:
> 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.
> ... ... please jump in and correct me if I am mistaken.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss