[Noisebridge-discuss] proposal to no longer require fees as a condition of membership

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 21:12:00 UTC 2013


And in that thread it was already pointed out that modifications are, in
fact, allowed in the process if they are not radical changes. The issue of
whether the member dues was a radical change was already discussed at that
meeting, and then decided on.

Again, if you want to talk about the validity of last week's consensus
item, then bring *that* up for discussion. Don't define it as invalid and
then move on without involving others.

-Al


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:

>  I don't need to declare anything void. I'm not doing anything that
> requires authority. I'm pointing out that process wasn't followed, and
> being an advocate for good process.
>
> If you agree that the members present Tuesday over-enthusiastically
> stretched the "minor changes" provision, you agree that the additions
> haven't been made valid by consensus. What's likely to happen is that it
> will come up again next Tuesday, nobody will block, and we'll move on.
>
> But if we don't insist on following our own rules, the process is
> vulnerable to abuse in the future. I'll point out that the thread that
> started this was called "Bug/Exploit in the 2nd week of a Consensus Item".
> --David
>
>
> On 11/21/13, 11:40 AM, Al Sweigart wrote:
>
> David, you are unilaterally declaring a part of the consensus that was
> reached by the members last week to be invalid. You don't have that
> authority, the membership does.
>
>  If you care about discussing proposals before making decisions, then
> bring up the validity of last week's consensus for discussion. Don't just
> pretend it doesn't count and we have to do a do-over.
>
>  -Al
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM, davidfine <d at vidfine.com> wrote:
>
>> The discussion so far counts as announcing the proposal at a meeting. So
>> I'll submit it to the consensus process at next Tuesday's meeting. I'm
>> not going to block it, even though the idea worries me a bit. As long as
>> the full membership has an opportunity to participate, I'll support
>> whatever decision is reached.
>> Cheers,
>> --David
>>
>> On 11/21/13, 9:44 AM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
>> > I think that our consensus process would be pretty weak if proposals
>> > couldn't mutate during the week that they're discussed.
>> >
>> > The goal of consensus (rather than democracy or whatnot) is to take a
>> > proposal and adjust it to address the preferences and concerns of
>> > everyone around the table until we find something which everyone
>> > present can live with. I've participated in plenty of consensus
>> > discussions in a variety of venues. In my experience, when complex,
>> > sophisticated, or interesting proposals are discussed, lots of
>> > amendment and adjustment is needed, and the final consensus is not
>> > something that any one person at the table would have guessed would be
>> > the final outcome.
>> >
>> > We have a practice of announcing a proposal at one meeting, then
>> > having the discussion of it at the next. I do not think that this
>> > should prevent us from having a real and vibrant discussion at the
>> > second meeting. I understand the purpose of the week's gap as
>> > providing notice to everyone in our community: this is what we'll be
>> > discussing next week, and if that topic is important to you, you
>> > should find a way to participate in the discussion.
>> >
>> > David Al and Kevin were discussing a sort of double-notice, or
>> > extended discussion. I think we could codify such a way of doing
>> > things like this:
>> >
>> > * week zero: announce the topic of discussion;
>> > * week one: discuss it and find provisional consensus, then announce
>> that;
>> > * week two: without objection our provisional consensus is finally
>> > agreed, otherwise repeat week one.
>> >
>> > This seems like a reasonable idea to me. It makes the process longer,
>> > and might require participants to come to several meetings in a row,
>> > but it does mean that nobody is going to be so surprised at the
>> > outcome of a consensus discussion that they'll kick themself for not
>> > being there when something unexpected came up. I think I might suggest
>> > it next week.
>> >
>> > Other thoughts on this?
>> > -Tom
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing listNoisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.nethttps://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131121/c82e9fcf/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list