[Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item
asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 00:47:55 UTC 2013
It sounds like in the future, members at meetings should be more
conservative in what amount of alteration should be considered worth
postponing the consensus. I can get behind that.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:40 PM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:
> I appreciate that decision. Al is correct that there is *some* room for
> changing the wording of a proposal so long as it isn't radically different.
> If you're calling something a 'stretch', that's one sign it may be outside
> that scope :)
> This is not a criticism of the proposal per se, but process is especially
> important on decisions that affect our rent-making engine. On some level,
> the slow and frustrating parts of the consensus process are the very
> reasons we chose to use it.
> On 11/20/13, 2:33 PM, bfb wrote:
> 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
> 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
> Date:11/20/2013 15:50 (GMT-06:00)
> To: Al Sweigart
> Cc: noisebridge-discuss
> 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