[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
bfb at riseup.net
Wed Nov 20 22:33:56 UTC 2013
The consensus of the meeting was that the proposal, as amended, was not radically different enough to warrant another week of discussion. The consensus page on the Noisebridge wiki also suggests that consensus is decision-centric.
I retrospect, insisting that the proposal in question come back the next week for further discussion, seems like the best idea. I don't know that we can create policy to prevent such happenings in the future. The process depends on a mutual understanding of what is and is not radically different or reasonably similar. My strengthened position is to always err on the side of patience.
-------- Original message --------
From: davidfine <d at vidfine.com>
Date:11/20/2013 15:50 (GMT-06:00)
To: Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
Cc: noisebridge-discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
I am not arguing that members can retroactively block consensus. I'm stating that consensus can only be reached on proposals in the form they were submitted to the list for prior review. In other words, you can't submit a proposal to save kittens and then add language minutes before the vote to allow an oil pipeline though the bathrooms. Proposals are submitted to the list first so that members can review them without being physically present at a Tuesday meeting. That's not my opinion, that's a description of the process. https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
On 11/20/13, 1:25 PM, Al Sweigart wrote:
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 future.
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